:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2002 Sou. Urmila Dilip Deshmukh Age : 56 years, Occu : Housewife, R/o.C/o.Naresh Dilip Deshmukh, 422, Iris Garden, Flat 14, Shivaji Nagar, Gokhale Road, Pune 411 016 ...Appellant (Orig.petitioner) Versus Dilip Pandurang Deshmukh Age: 58 years, Occu : Business Landlord R/o. CTS No.6234/4 C(Old) (1835 new) Jayashree Bungalow Deshmukhwsadi, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030 ...Respondent (Orig.respondent) -------- Mr.Vivek Salunke i/by. Mr.P.B.Shah, Advocate for appellant. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE DATE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED : 2.5.2008. : 2.5.2008. : 2.5.2008. DATE DATE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. : 4TH JUNE, 2008. : 4TH JUNE, 2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT : : : (PER: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) :- (PER: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) :- (PER: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) :- 1. By this appeal, the appellant who is the original petitioner/wife takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3.11.2001 passed by the :2: :2: :2: court of Family Court, Pune in Petition C-No.56/2000 seeking maintenance and accommodation from the respondent/husband. The appellant is the divorced wife of the respondent, the divorce having taken place in the year 1983, at the instance of the respondent. The decree of divorce did not make any provision for maintenance. However, custody of both the sons was given to the appellant. Several years thereafter i.e. on 30.6.2000 the appellant filed petition for maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and for accommodation i.e. a flat of 2 Bedrooms in a decent locality at Pune from the respondent. She also claimed Rs.3,60,000/- as arrears of maintenance for the past three years. 2. The respondent contested the petition contending that a divorced woman is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. On merits, he has two contentions. Firstly, that the appellant has huge income and hence does not need any maintenance from him. And secondly that he himself being a handicapped person cannot do any work. He submits that he has been suffering from Diabetes. :3: :3: :3: Because of this ailment, one of his legs has been amputed. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial judge, held that the appellant is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act but not under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Then after referring to the respective financial positions of the parties, he awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the appellant from the date of presentation of the petition and Rs.36,000/- towards past maintenance. The claim of the appellant for a flat in decent locality was dismissed. 4. The respondent has not challenged the impugned judgment and order thereby accepting the right of the appellant and his own liability to pay maintenance. 5. The appellant contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is too meagre :4: :4: :4: having regard to the status and standard of living of both the parties. The details of her contentions are as follows : The appellant belongs to a princely family being the princess of Kurandawad. The respondent has been an extremely rich person. He is in the business of building construction and owns several movable and immovable properties. He holds five Saving Bank Accounts with Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank, all the accounts reflecting transactions of huge amounts. He held 22 fixed deposits for the amounts ranging between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,60,000 and totalling to about Rs.20 lacs. He has constructed five storeyed building on the land bearing CTS No.1837, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, one of the prime locations at Pune. There are six spacious flats in the building. He is the owner of the property at 67-A, Shaniwar Peth, Pune, another prime location, which has been let out to different tenants. The total value of the immovable properties of the respondent at the relevant time was about Rs.1.5 crores. The respondent earns income from rent to the extent of Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/- per month. In addition, he has invested :5: :5: :5: in shares of various joint stock companies and earns income from dividends and interest therefrom. Besides, the above properties, the respondent has received share in ancestral property consisting of six houses, ornaments, jewellery, shares, cash, etc. The mother of the respondent has also bequeathed her entire property to him. The appellant contends that taking into account the fact that the respondent owns huge movable and immovable properties, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Judge is not commensurate with the status of either parties. 6. As already mentioned above, the respondent contended before the trial court that the appellant does not need any maintenance from him, because she has a large independent income. According to him, that is the reason why the decree of divorce did not make any provision for maintenance, either for the appellant or for the children. The respondent, deposed about some bank account of the appellant, a locker in the bank at Pune and some fixed deposit in the bank at Belgaum, in addition to the ornaments :6: :6: :6: allegedly carried by her while leaving the respondent. 7. The above evidence as per the observation of the learned Trial judge relates to the past and there was no evidence as regards the present income of the appellant. He therefore held that the appellant has no income for her livelihood and awarded maintenance to her. As regards the prayer for accommodation, the Learned Trial Judge took note of the fact that the appellant owns a flat at Model Colony, Pune and rejected the prayer. In the circumstances, the only question that arises for our consideration in the instant Appeal, is whether the amount of maintenance awarded to the appellant can be said to be reasonable taking into account the social and financial status of both the parties. 8. It is to be noted that today both the appellant and the respondent are quite old. The appellant is about 63 years old. Both the sons of the parties are educated and well settled in their lives. It is not the case of the appellant that the :7: :7: :7: sons do not care for her. Therefore the appellant is required to be awarded only some reasonable amount without going deeper into the social and financial status of the parties. We are with the appellant in saying that the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month granted to her is meagre and the same needs to be enhanced. There is no doubt that the respondent is a wealthy person owning large number of movable and immovable properties. He also earns sufficiently large income. Admittedly his fixed deposits alone have been within the range of Rs.15 lacs to Rs.20 lacs during the period 1997-2000. He is also a commission agent for four wheelers. He has been earning from immovable properties in the form of rent. Mr.Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that, the respondent has also been suffering from several ailments including that of Diabetes. Today, unfortunately his both legs are amputed reducing him to a dependent upon other persons. As a consequence, his expenditure has increased. There are neither any particulars given of the additional expenditure nor any material brought before the :8: :8: :8: court to substantiate the same. Undisputedly, the respondent has no other liabilities or responsibilities excepting to himself. The financial condition of the respondent, as seen from the record, is such that it can very comfortably take on the additional burden. As compared to that, the maintenance awarded to the appellant is definitely meagre. In our considered opinion, the amount of maintenance awarded to the appellant is required to be enhanced. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, we are of the opinion that if the appellant is awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this order and Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order i.e. 3.11.2001 till the date of this order it will serve the purpose. As regards, the past maintenance and for the period of pendency of the petition before the trial court, we are of the opinion that the maintenance awarded of Rs.1,000/- per month is appropriate. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to receive Rs.36,000/- towards past maintenance, Rs.1,000/- per month for the period 30.6.2000 to 3.11.2001, Rs.2,000/- per month for the :9: :9: :9: period 3.11.2001 till date and Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this order. In the circumstances, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is modified accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J)