ANIL RAMCHANDRA HARINAME Vs. ROHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue arising in these two Appeals is confined to the maintenance payable to the wife and two children. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, a brief reference to the facts of this case will be necessary.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28th February 1997 in accordance with the Buddhist rites and customs. The son Ankit was born on 15th October 1991 and the daughter Anushree was born on 29th September 1997. The daughter Anushree has an impaired vision. The husband was employed with the Air India. During the pendency of these Appeals, by virtue of the superannuation, the husband ceased to be in the employment of the Air India with effect from 31st March 2012. The wife was earlier employed with the Air India. In 1993 -1994, the wife lost employment. The case of the wife is that the daughter Anushree requires constant medical attention and she was put in a Special School. As far as the son Ankit is concerned, it is brought on record during the pendency of the Appeals that from September 2013, he secured an employment with Jet Airways and has started getting a stipend of Rs. 13,000/ - per month.

(3.) THE Petition for a decree of judicial separation was filed by the wife on 21st January 2000. It appears from the record that on 17th October 2005, the consent terms were filed by the husband and the wife. The consent terms provided for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, but the issue of maintenance was kept open to be decided by the Family Court. The wife applied for grant of permission for withdrawal of the consent. The said Application was rejected. The Writ Petition No. 7175 of 2006 was filed by the wife before this Court for challenging the said order. The pending proceedings were not stayed in the said Petition. When the Matrimonial Petition before the Family Court was being finally heard, the wife made a statement that she would withdraw the said Writ Petition. Accordingly, the said Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the wife decided to abide by the consent terms. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court framed only two issues relating to the claim for maintenance made by the wife. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th December 2007, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the said Act. The learned Judge directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - per month each to the wife and the son and maintenance of Rs. 15,000/ - per month to the daughter Anushree. Though the Petition was filed on 21st January 2000, the learned Judge directed that the maintenance shall be payable from 1st May 2007. The learned Judge observed that due to various Applications made by the wife in the Petition filed by her, disposal of the Petition was delayed. Therefore, the learned Judge declined to grant maintenance from the date of the filing of the Petition.