1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1271 OF 2009 Deepak Gangaram Ahirrao - APPELLANT VERSUS Sunita Deepak Ahirrao - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.NB Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellant; Mr.Girish Rane, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 17th July, 2009. PER COURT : . Indeed, there is already appearance of Mr.Girish Rane for sole respondent. However, to cure the defect, acknowledgment, having been served to the sole respondent, is tendered on record. 2) Heard learned Counsel for respective parties extensively. By their consent, the matter is finally disposed of without calling the record as the matter is argued based on the available evidence and documents as tendered by the counsel for the appellant on 8th May, 2009. 3) The marital status of Sunita with Deepak is not in controversy. They could not sail well 2 after the marriage though their marital relations, as husband and wife, do exist. Wife Sunita on account of sufferance of burn injuries in a mishap, has filed a suit for recovery of medical expenses of Rs.3,60,000/- and also sought maintenance of Rs.1,12,000/- for a period of sixteen months. She has also claimed Rs.7,000/- by way of future maintenance. 4) The wife has alleged that in a accident dated 12.4.2003, the husband, his mother, doused kerosene on her person, and in the melee, she has suffered burn injuries. She was taken for treatment to Dhule, thereafter she received the treatment at various hospitals, for which record is placed by the wife. 5) The wife’s burns is not in controversy. The said incident is a permanent scar to the wife. I need not travel to the criminal prosecution launched against the husband based on allegations made by the wife as I am informed, the husband, his mother-in-law were acquitted in such criminal prosecution. 6) The point of controversy for me is, whether the learned Judge was justified in granting the maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- ; and also about the claim, as sought by the wife, and as the learned Judge found to have been proved. 7) The issues formulated by the learned Judge below Exhibit-30 and its answers, if read 3 in consonance with the evidence, I find there is no infirmity in the learned Judge arriving at the figures of Rs.2,34,725/-. The past maintenance, as indicated in issue no.4, was reached @ Rs. 6,000/- and consequently, the figure was at Rs. 96,000/-. I do not find any reason to disturb that finding. 8) It was canvassed by Mr. Suryawanshi, the husband has a fixed monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- and having parted Rs.6,000/-, he will be left over a meager salary of Rs.5,000/- to maintain himself and his mother. 9) This is factually incorrect. The Salary Certificate of the husband at Exhibit-69 illustrates that his gross salary is of Rs. 13,201/- while net salary is Rs.11,441/- per month. The husband has indeed agricultural property from his father though he has disputed the same, his father is a retired Agriculture Supervisor, who enjoys family pension, and has 3 hectares and 10 R. agricultural land in the name of mother of the husband at village Dighave and 9 hectares and 77 R. of the agricultural land in the name of father of the husband in the same village. It is thus clear, there is sufficient income from agricultural property at least to the parents of the husband. The fact remains, the salary drawn by the husband, his employment, his age, should not be in controversy. 4 10) The learned Judge, based on the calculations, future need of medical expenses to meet the regular treatment of the wife, found that monthly amount of Rs.6,000/- will be a reasonable figure for her maintenance. 11) During the course of submissions, it transpire that the wife, in the set of present scenario, would be comfortable to choice herself in the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, so long as there is no change of circumstances. In view of this situation, the amount of Rs.6,000/-, as monthly maintenance, needs interference only from the date of order dated 8.4.2009. 12) During the course of submissions it was canvassed, considering the irretrievable nature of the marriage relations, the parties have reached a stage of separation, it will be in the fitness of circumstances to dissolve the marital tie and get a happy future peaceful life. It is left to be decided by the prudent consensus of both the parties. Hence, order - (i) The appeal is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned order in so far as it directs payment of Rs.2,34,725=13 towards the medical expenses, and also the decree of payment of Rs.96,000/-, towards past maintenance by the appellant/husband to the wife is not disturbed; (iii) The monthly maintenance is reduced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,000/- from 8.4.2009; 5 (iv) The past maintenance at Rs.6,000/- till the date of order shall remain unaltered. (iv) No costs. (v) In view of disposal of the appeal, CA NO.5754/2009 for Stay does not survive, it is disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/fa1271.09