1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Family Court Appeal No.59 of 2001 With Civil Application No.143 of 2001 Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil Appellant Vs. Sou. Veena Jaykumar Patil Respondent Ms.Archana Kolagi for appellant. Mr.Mahesh Subramanyam i/b. Mr.S.V.Pitre for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & RAVI K.DESHPANDE,JJ. April 2, 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 25/9/2000 rendered by the Family Court at Pune to the extent of granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent - wife and Rs.500/- per month to the son till he attains majority. 2. The parties were married on 10/8/1990 according to the Hindu religion and customs and from the said wedlock they begot a son on 30/1/1993. Petition No.A-722 of 1994 was filed by the husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage 2 Act, 1955 ("the Act" for short) i.e. on the ground of cruelty. The wife in her Written Statement at Exhibit 14 and opposed the petition for divorce and alleged that she was treated with cruelty by the husband and the mother-in-law. In support of his claim for divorce the appellant examined himself as PW 1, his mother as PW 2 and Nirmala Jemines - PW 3. The wife stepped in the witness box to oppose the petition and examined Shri Devendra Varoor - DW 2. 3. On consideration of the pleadings including the evidence, the Family Court was pleased to hold that the charge of cruelty against the wife was proved and the wife could not prove the charge of cruelty against her husband or the members of his family. Consequently the marriage between the parties came to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. While dissolving the marriage the Family Court fixed the amount of maintenance as noted hereinabove and in this appeal the challenge is only limited to the directions to pay maintenance for the wife as well as the minor son. 4. Ms.Kolagi, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the 3 observations in para 21 of the impugned order and submitted that when the appellant did not have any source of income of his own, the Family Court could not have granted any maintenance while dissolving the marriage. It is clear from the impugned order that the wife had filed an application at Exhibit 17 and prayed for interim alimony at Rs.3000/- per month for herself and the son. This application was partly allowed and the Family Court was pleased to direct to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the wife and Rs.200/- per month to the son by way of interim maintenance. The Family Court noted that the husband was suffering from epilepsy and was not earning at the time of marriage and even thereafter. He was being maintained by his parents and was intending to start some business with a view to stand on his own and with the support of the investments to be made by his parents. Considering these obtaining circumstances, the Family Court thought it fit to raise the amount of Rs.300/- to Rs.800/- for the wife and from Rs.200/- to Rs.500/- for the son by way of monthly maintenance in lieu of permanent alimony. Once the marriage between the parties was admitted, it becomes the responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife and the child. It cannot be accepted in law that if the 4 husband is unemployed or if he has no source of income, he is not required to pay maintenance to the wife and the son who are totally dependent upon him. It is not the case of the appellant that the wife has any other source of income. On the other hand, it has come on record that the petitioner’s father had immovable properties which came to be disposed off and the proceeds to some extent have been reinvested. The appellant is presently staying with his mother and in their own house at Pune. The mother is a pensioner. The arrears of maintenance have not been cleared and an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited with the Registry of this Court. The mother of the appellant filed an affidavit explaining the financial conditions of the family and stated that she has no source of income and, therefore, the appellant is incapable of paying maintenance amount. The respondent has filed additional affidavit and pointed out the disposal of various immovable properties held by the appellant’s father. In the rejoinder the appellant’s mother has admitted some sale transactions and investments in the flat. We, therefore, do not accept the contentions that the appellant is on the streets. 5. Hence we do not find any merit in the challenge 5 raised against the order directing to pay maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the son and consequently this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. 6. The deposited amount is hereby allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent. 7. Civil Application does not survive and it stands disposed. (RAVI K. DESHPANDE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)