1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Family Court Appeal No.86 of 2007 Ms.Adhyaatmam Bhamini Appellant Vs. Mr.Jagdish Ambalal Shah Respondent Appellant in person. Ms.Nalini Chagla for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. March 21, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) 1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises from the judgment and order dated 5/12/2002 rendered by the Family Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Petition B-45 of 1992 partly. The present appellant was the petitioner before the Family Court and she had claimed recovery of Rs.29,145/- along with interest thereon from the respondent - husband. It was her case that the LIC policy bearing Policy No.17086097 under the Married Women’s Property Act involving the total amount of Rs Rs.41,532/- was assigned to her and against the said policy the respondent - husband had borrowed loan with an undertaking to repay the said amount within a short 2 period. However, on maturity of the policy the LIC deducted the loan amount of Rs.19,650/- and interest of Rs.2773.91. 2. Though the respondent had filed Written Statement at Exhibit 4 and contended that the petitioner was barred by law of limitation, the Family Court allowed the petitioner’s claim for an amount of Rs.20,766/-. The Family Court further directed to pay the petitioner interest on the said amount of Rs.20,766/- at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from 18/6/1989 till the payment of the said amount. The grievance raised in this petition is limited to the issue of interest. It was submitted by the petitioner - appellant that she ought to have been granted interest at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent per annum and not at 6 per cent per annum. 3. Though the petition was filed in 1992, the LIC policy had matured in June 1989 itself and she lost about Rs.20,766/- from the date the policy had matured. Keeping this in mind the Family Court granted interest for the entire period from June 1989 onwards till the payment of the said amount which admittedly has been paid by the respondent to the 3 appellant on or about 4/7/2003. 4. We have gone through the scheme of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we do not find any error committed by the Family Court in awarding interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The marriage between the parties came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 18th June 1993 and it was confirmed finally by the Apex Court sometimes in the year 1996. During all this period the appellant had not claimed any such recovery. We, therefore, do not find any reason to reconsider the reasoning set out by the Family Court in awarding interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and more so when it is a discretionary order. 5. Hence, Appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)