VIRGINIA PASCOL PATIL Vs. SHASHIKANT MAHADEO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. Today, the appeal is specifically listed under the caption of 'Final Hearing'. The appeal is preferred by the wife. The respondent is the husband. By a Judgment and Decree dated 9th March 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra,Mumbai in petition No.A 682 of 2009, while granting a decree of divorce under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,1954, the learned Judge granted a decree of permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.4,000/ per month from the date of decree.

(2.) The respondenthusband filed Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2010 seeking modification of the Decree impugned in this Appeal granting permanent alimony. The application was opposed by the appellantwife. The parties led oral evidence. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the earlier Decree dated 9th March 2011 was modified and the maintenance amount which was made payable at the rate of Rs.4,000/ per month was reduced to Rs.2,500/ per month. This order was passed in purported exercise of the powers under subsection (2) of section 37 of the Special Marriage Act,1954 (for short 'the said Act'). The Family Court while passing the Decree of Divorce is entitled to pass a Decree granting permanent alimony and maintenance. Under subsection 2 of section 37, there is a power vesting in the Court to modify or rescind the Decree of permanent alimony and maintenance, if it is satisfied that there is a change in circumstances.

(3.) We have perused the application made by the respondenthusband, the reply of the appellantwife to the said Application and the notes of evidence. In the application made by the respondenthusband, firstly, he has stated that the appellantwife has falsely deposed in the main petition that she was not earning. It is contended that she was working as a teacher in Royal City English School from 15 th June 2010 onwards. Reliance was placed on the information obtained from the school. Secondly, it is contended that in the petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 (for short "the said Act of 2005"), in addition to interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/ per month, an amount of Rs.400/ per month towards rent was granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Thirdly, it is contended that the respondent had suffered an accident and since then, he has become handicapped. Fourthly, it is alleged that he has to pay for the expenses of son and daughter towards maintenance and education. Fifthly, the appellant wife has earning capacity as she has studied up to graduation and has completed nursing course. Sixthly, it is contended that the wife is having a love affair with another person.