Santram vs Suryakala W/o. Santaram Pawar

A.V. Nirgude, J.(Oral)—The applicant/husband is challenging the correctness of the impugned order directing him to pay enhanced maintenance to his estranged wife and two children.

Factual background of this case, can be stated as under :

In 1978, the applicant and respondent No.1 got married, and in 1994 and 1996, two sons were born to them. Sometime in 1996, there occurred a estrangement between the couple, and respondent No. 1 and her minor sons i. e. respondent Nos. 2 & 3 started residing separately. Respondent No.1 then moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and for her two minor sons against the applicant. In 1996. There occurred a compromise between the parties and the applicant agreed to pay Rs.500/- p. m. to respondent No.1 and Rs.300/p. m. each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, as maintenance. In 1999, respondent No.1''s sons got their monthly maintenance enhanced to Rs.500/- each. In 2000, respondent No. 1/wife made similar application for enhancement of maintenance, but the parties arrived at another compromise and respondent No.1 agreed to receive Rs. 600/- as monthly maintenance to herself. In 2003, two row houses were purchased, and it is the case of the applicant that respondent No.1 and her two sons started residing in one of the row houses and utilised rent of the other row house. On the other hand, applicant said that he started paying monthly'' instalment of loan which he took for acquiring two row houses. In 2004, the present proceedings was started yet again for enhancement of maintenance, and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad granted enhancement to the tune of Rs. 1000/- p. m. for respondent No.l and Rs.750/- p. m. each for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. The applicant has filed this revision application against this order dated 10th May, 2005.

Soon after filing of the revision application, this Court directed stay to the enhancement that the applicant should pay monthly maintenance of Rs.800/to respondent No.l and Rs. 600/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I am told that this order is being obeyed. Unfortunately this revision application remained pending for last six years, and in my view, it is almost redundant, because time has come for respondents to seek further enhancement in the amount due to passage of time. I am also told that during this time, both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have attained the age of majority and are probably not entitled for maintenance from the applicant.

In the light of this, it would be proper for me not to dilate on the issues for deciding this revision application. Instead I direct the applicant to abide by the interim order passed by this Court on 19th September, 2005 as and by way of final order in this revision application, respondent No.1 is given liberty to make fresh application for enhancement of maintenance amount. The applicant has all the defences which were taken earlier open and new defences that can be taken now. If such an application is made, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad shall decide the same after hearing the parties. It is made further clear that since respondent No.,3 also attained the age of majority, he is not entitled for maintenance as per order dated 19th September, 2005 from the date of his attaining the age of majority. The order dated 19th September, 2005 of the this order shall be effective from the date of the impugned order dated 10th May, 2005. Rule is made absolute in terms of above order.

In view of disposal of Criminal Revision Application, Criminal Application No. 1165 of 2012 stands disposed of.