Ca 254/10 1 IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.254/2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.168/2009 Vaishali H.Khavle Applicant Vs. Hemant Khavle Respondent Ms.V.V.Thorat for applicant None for respondent CORAM- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE 5th April,2011 P.C. . By this application, the applicant/wife prays for interim maintenance during the pendency of the appeal in the sum of Rs.15,000/- for herself and Rs.12,000/- p.m. for her daughter. 2 In so far as maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- is concerned, according to the applicant, she is entitled to be compensated for the E.M.I.amount of housing loan taken by her for residential premises. At the same time, it is conceded before us that, the applicant has now remarried. If it is so, the question of providing any maintenance to the applicant does not arise. Ca 254/10 2 The argument of the applicant that equal monthly installments towards the housing loan of residential premises should be borne by the respondent/ husband, that relief also cannot be granted to the applicant as she has remarried. The applicant could have been compensated by way of equal monthly installments of the housing loan for residential purpose in lieu of her right to maintenance. But, since the applicant has remarried, she cannot claim that right after the date of her remarriage. Accordingly, the claim of the applicant to compensate her by payment of sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m.cannot be entertained. The same is rejected. 3 However, in so far as maintenance amount payable to the daughter born out of the wedlock with the respondent in sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. is concerned, that prayer is acceded . We find that the respondent even after service as back as in September,2010 has not chosen to file any reply to counter the assertions made in this application. The respondent has appeared through advocate . The Court orders indicate that most of the time the respondent’s advocate remained absent. Today, when the matter was called out in the morning session Ca 254/10 3 none appeared for respondent. By way of indulgence we kept back the matter and notified on electronic board that Adv. Jeevan Shah should remain present when the matter will be called out as kept back matter. After such information was displayed on electronic board, advocate for respondent Jeevan Shah contacted the Sheristedar of the Court to ascertain the position.The Sheristedar informs us that Jeevan Shah was told that the matter will be taken up for hearing as kept back matter. However, when the matter was called out as kept back matter once again no one appeared for the respondent. We, therefore, again kept back the matter till lunch break and directed the Sheristedar to notify that position on the electronic board. When the matter was called out after lunch break once again none appears for the respondent. Accordingly, we have no option but to proceed with this application. As the assertions in the application have remained uncontroverted, going by the said assertions, amount of Rs.12,000/-p.m. towards the maintenance of the daughter is quite just and reasonable. 4 Accordingly, the application is partly allowed . The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance for the Ca 254/10 4 daughter at the rate of Rs.12,000/- p.m. with effect from 2nd September,2010 . The respondent shall pay the arrears within four weeks from the service of this order on him or his counsel, whichever is earlier . The respondent shall pay costs of this application quantified at Rs.5,000/-to the petitioner . The respondent shall pay future maintenance amount in terms of this order on before 5th day of every English Calender month. The application is disposed of on above terms. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR ,J.)