: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.48 OF 2009 IN PETITION "C" NO.04 OF 2007 Shri Vishnudatta Bhuralal Jani ..Appellant. Vs. Sau Bharati Vishnudatta Jani ..Respondent. Mr.S.P. Ronghe for the Appellant. Mr.S.A.Sawant with Ms.Gunjan Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : DATED : DATED : 8TH APRIL, 2009 8TH APRIL, 2009 8TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- We have heard Mr.Ronghe, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sawant, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. On 20.4.2001 the Family Court at Pune passed two separate orders on the petitions filed by the wife. Petition No.77 of 1997 was filed under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Maintenance Act for short), praying for maintenance for the wife as well as for two daughters and one son. : 2 : 3. During the pendency of this petition, the wife moved another petition registered as Petition "A" No.325 of 1998 and she sought divorce under section 13(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Marriage Act for short). The petition for divorce was allowed on 20.4.2001 on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion and, on the same day, the petition for maintenance was also allowed, directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife from the date of the petition till her life time and, in addition, an amount of Rs.800/- per month was directed to be paid to each of the three children. 4. The appellant approached this Court in Family Court Appeal No.58 of 2002 but only against the order of maintenance and he did not challenge the decree of divorce. 5. By the judgment of this Court dated 24.3.2004, a Division Bench of this Court (F.I. Rebello & S.R. Sathe, JJ.) confirmed the order of maintenance to be paid to the wife and so far as the issue of maintenance to the children was concerned, it granted liberty to move the Family Court under section 25 of the Maintenance Act for : 3 : varying/modifying or rescending the order in favour of the other two children and the amount of maintenance payable to the son was discontinued from 7.10.2000. 6. The appellant therefore approached the Family Court by an application filed under section 25 and registered as Petition "C" No.04 of 2007. 7. By the impugned order dated 13.9.2008 the Family Court was pleased to allow the petition partly by confirming the order of maintenance so far as it concerns the wife and the order of maintenance to the two daughters was recalled. 8. Once the order of maintenance to be paid to the wife till her life time, was confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.3.2004 in Family Court Appeal No.58 of 2002, no fault can be found with the Family Court in passing the impugned order, refusing to vary the order of maintenance in favour of the wife. 9. Mr.Ronghe, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that when the decree of divorce was granted on 20.4.2001 by allowing the petition : 4 : filed by the wife, no separate application praying for permanent alimony under section 25 of the Marriage Act was filed or was pending before the Family Court and, therefore, even if the application under section 18 of the Maintenance Act filed by the wife was allowed, such maintenance amount could have been paid only upto the date of decree of divorce i.e. 20.4.2001 and, thereafter, if the wife desired that the husband must pay, it was necessary for her to file an application under section 25 of the said Act. 10. It appears that these submissions were not advanced in Family Court Appeal No.58 of 2002 and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the only remedy available to the appellant is to file a Review Petition in Family Court Appeal No.58 of 2002. 11. Hence, the Appeal is disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a Review Petition in Family Court Appeal No.58 of 2002. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)