Ambuja Sushil Kulkarni vs Sushil Suresh Kulkarni

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court, assailing the order dated 02.04.2014, passed in Crl.Misc. No. 426/2009 only insofar as rejecting the claim of (he first petitioner and granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- only to the second petitioner and that too from the date of the order.

The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent, while the second petitioner is the minor son. At the stage when the petition was filed, the son was aged about six years. The Court below after considering the rival contentions arrived at the conclusion that the first petitioner would not be entitled to maintenance while the second petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the date of the order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the Court below taken me through the order and contended that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the first petitioner and limiting the maintenance only to Rs.6,000/- to the second petitioner and that too from the date of order. It is contended that at the point when the matter was considered by the Court below, the respondent was earning a sum of Rs.46,417/- as noted by the Court below'' and at present in any event there would be increments and the respondent would have higher salary and as such the maintenance is required to be granted at a higher quantum.

Learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the order passed by the Court below. The finding as recorded by the Court below is referred to point out that the Court below after taking into consideration all aspects arrived at its conclusion, which does not call for interference.

In the light of the contention. I have perused the order impugned. The first petitioner had examined herself as PW1 and also relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and relied upon the documents at Bxs.R1 and R2. In the light of the evidence, the Court below recorded the finding that (he first petitioner is not entitled to maintenance after taking note of the admission made by her as PW1 with regard to her employment as Assistant Professor and getting handsome salary in that regard. In such circumstance, certainly the conclusion reached that the first petitioner is not entitled to maintenance cannot be interfered. The question for consideration however is with regard to the quantum of maintenance as awarded to the second petitioner. The Court below after taking into consideration the salary of the respondent awarded the said maintenance.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the same is meager, I am of the opinion that keeping in view the age of the second petitioner, which at this stage is also 11 years, the said amount as awarded by the Court below would be justified. I am of the said opinion also for the reason that when it is established that the first petitioner is also employed, in addition to the maintenance that would be provided by the respondent, the first petitioner will also have to incur some expenses towards child from her income. However, at a later stage when the child grows up and due to the educational needs or otherwise, if the expenses increase certainly at that stage, the petitioner would be entitled to seek for enhancement of the maintenance in accordance with law and in that regard liberty as well as the contentions are left open.

The next aspect is with regard to the date from which the maintenance as ordered ought to have been paid to the second petitioner. The Court below had granted the maintenance from the date of order. As noticed, the second petitioner was aged about six years when the petition was filed. There is nothing on record to indicate that at that stage, the respondent was providing any maintenance to the second respondent. If that be the position, when the Court below arrived at the conclusion that the respondent enough re sources to pay maintenance to the second respondent and quantum of maintenance is also arrived at, the relevant date should have been the date on which the petition was filed. The petitioner had made a grievance that they are not provided with maintenance and therefore, the said amount is to be granted. In the in & stance case, if there was any interlocutors order for payment of maintenance during the pendency of the main petition, the same could be adjusted. If that be the position, the maintenance now ordered will have to be from the date of petition and if at all any interim maintenance was granted, the respondent would he entitled to deduct the said amount paid and pay the balance amount to the second petitioner.

The lumpsum arrears shall be paid by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order and continue to pay the monthly maintenance in future also.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.