RASILA Vs. DEEPAK DHANSUKHLAL VANJARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal was disposed of finally by the judgment and order dated 25th July 2014. Civil Application No. 395 of 2011 was taken out for setting aside the said judgment and decree. The Civil Application has been allowed and, therefore, the Appeal was taken up for final hearing afresh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Appellant wife submitted that the Appeal is confined to that part of the decree by which the maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500/ - per month was fixed by the Family Court. The Appellant is seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance. The order dated 20th November 2007 passed by this Court records a statement of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the challenge in the Appeal is restricted only to that part of the decree by which the maintenance of Rs.1,500/ -per month has been fixed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Respondent husband pointed out that the Respondent has incurred expenditure on education and maintenance of his son. She stated that from the years 2004 to 2008, the son was doing graduation at Thakur College, Kandivali (East), Mumbai. She stated that a substantial expenditure has been incurred by the Respondent on the education and maintenance of his son. She relied upon an affidavit dated 11th December 2014 filed by the Respondent husband. She pointed that on 26th November 2010, the Respondent has got married to one Aarti, who is a divorcà ((THELAW))e. The learned counsel\ appearing for the Respondent husband submitted that monthly expenses incurred by the Respondent on himself are to the tune of Rs.10,000/ -and he is spending a sum of Rs.12,000/ -for his wife and his aged mother. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent relied upon the entries in the passbook of the Respondent which is annexed to the said affidavit. Her submission is that the passbook shows that there are certain credit entries in the said account. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that considering the fact that till the year 2010, the Respondent had to incur very heavy expenditure on the education of his son and his father's medical treatment and considering the fact that his mother and his second wife are fully dependent upon him, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree.