1 fca-136-04.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2004 Shri Gyanaba Krishnaji Bhujbal ...Appellant Versus Sau. Malan Gyanaba Bhujbal & ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.P. Vanarase for appellant. Mr. Ameya Tamhane for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 16, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. This appeal impugns the order dated 27/7/2004 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune in Petition C.No. 69 of 2000. It was a petition filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The Family Court framed the following issues:- 2 fca-136-04.doc (i) Whether petitioner proves that she is legally wedded wife of respondent? (ii) Whether petitioner proves that he is guilty of desertion i.e. to say he willfully neglected her? (iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act? All the three issues have been answered in the affirmative and we have gone through the reasoning set out in support of these findings. We do not find any error in the said reasoning. 2. So far as quantification of the maintenance amount is concerned, the Family Court noted that the appellant was in the Government service in the Revenue Department as Senior Clerk and his monthly salary at the relevant time was Rs.12,000/- per month. He was suspended since April, 2004. It is well known that the suspension allowance also gets increased beyond 50%. Mr. Vanarase informed us that by now the appellant has already retired from service. 3 fca-136-04.doc 3. Be that as it may, the 7x12 extract of the land holding of the appellant also was considered and it was noticed that his family has 7 H. and 23 Gunthas of land in Gat No. 380 and 3 H. and 15 Gunthas of land in Gat No. 423. The Family Court also considered one more additional fact, namely, that the wife was getting maintenance of Rs.400/- per month for herself and Rs.200/- per month for each of her two children in M.A. No. 235 of 1995. 4. Having regard to all these obtaining circumstances, the Family Court awarded Rs.600/- per month to the wife and Rs.800/- per month to each of the two children by way of maintenance by the impugned order. In our considered opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record or even otherwise any illegality committed by the Family Court in granting the maintenance amount. 5. Hence, this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. We clarify that so far as the maintenance amount to the 4 fca-136-04.doc children is concerned, the son will be entitled to maintenance till he attains majority and the daughter will be entitled to maintenance till she is married or if more than 18 years of age, she is employed or has independent financial source of income. 7. Civil Application No. 220 of 2004 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)