VRINDA BHARAT MHAPSEKAR Vs. BHARAT PRABHAKAR MHAPSEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking following reliefs :-

(2.) The respondent-husband filed a Family Court Appeal No. 39 of 2011 and the applicant-wife being aggrieved by the said order filed Family Court Appeal No. 60 of 2011. The said Family Court Appeal was admitted and pending for final hearing. In the said Family Court Appeal the applicant filed an application claiming enhancement of maintenance granted to her son and also claimed maintenance for herself. This Court by order dated 29th September, 2011 was pleased to direct the respondent-husband to pay sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance to the child. A further direction was given to the husband to hand over all the articles which were kept in the steel-box.

(3.) It was submitted that this application was filed by the applicant for enhancement since she had learned that the respondent-husband had been promoted as 'General Manager' and was now earning a salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) per month and therefore the applicant was entitled to seek enhanced maintenance for her son. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that her son Uday was now studying in 8th Standard and therefore she had to incure huge expenses for his education and extra curricular activities. It was submitted that therefore maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was contended that the respondent owned 3 flats in Mumbai and had Savings Account in six banks. He had two cars and no dependents upon him since his parents were also financially well off. On the other ground learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband submitted that all the education expenses of Uday, son of the applicant and respondent were taken care of in the amount of maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- which was paid by him every month. She submitted that the total expenses of his son were to the tune of Rs. 79,682/- per annum whereas the total maintenance paid by him was Rs. 90,000/- per annum. It was submitted therefore the amount of maintenance was liable to be reduced. It was then contended that in September, 2011 the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: D.B. Bhosale & M.L. Tahaliyani, JJ.) had by consent of the parties granted maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month to the son Uday and within six months the present application is filed by the applicant. It is submitted that since the earlier order was passed the present application was not maintainable. It was further contended that there was no change in the circumstances. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent produced the salary certificate of the respondent and contended that his salary was Rs. 74,910/- per month.