OF 2023 IN FCA/20/2010 Sow. Rajashree Sanjay SuryawanshiAge 30 years, Occu: Household v. Dr. Sanjay Kashinath SuryawanshiAge 46 years

{1} FCA-19-2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12167 OF 2023 IN FCA/19/2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8904 OF 2010 IN FCA/19/2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7649 OF 2023 IN FCA/19/2010WITHFAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10550 OF 2017 IN FCA/20/2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15861 OF 2022 IN FCA/20/2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12168 OF 2023 IN FCA/20/2010Sow. Rajashree Sanjay SuryawanshiAge 30 years, Occu: Household,R/o C/o Ramlal Mhasuji Ghate, House No. 1-12-55, Gautamnagar, Opp. Narwade Niwas, Ghati, Aurangabad.….APPELLANT[Orig. Respondent] VERSUSDr. Sanjay Kashinath SuryawanshiAge 46 years, Occ. Professor, Bhagyawant Punde {2} FCA-19-2010R/o. ‘Prafulla Laxmi Kunj’,Near University Gate, Jaisingpura, Aurangabad.…..RESPONDENT [Orig. Petitioner]…..Mr. Rajesh K. Khandelwal, Advocate for AppellantMr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondent ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.J. RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER, 2025PRONOUNCED ON: 17th DECEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.]1.These appeals filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act,1984 by appellant/wife, challenge judgment and decree dated19.04.2010 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad inPetition No. A-157/2008 filed by respondent/husband for divorce andPetition No. C-24/2008 filed by appellant/wife and daughters formaintenance.2.Respondent/Husband filed Petition No. A-157/2008 beforethe Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. By the impugnedjudgment and decree, Family Court dissolved the marriage of appellantand respondent by granting decree of divorce and directed therespondent to pay sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards permanent alimonyto the appellant. Custody of minor daughters was continued with theBhagyawant Punde {3} FCA-19-2010appellant.3.By filing Petition No. C-24/2008, appellant/wife and twodaughters claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each per month fromthe respondent contending that the respondent is lecturer byprofession and he is getting Rs. 40,000/- salary per month. He ishaving three houses from which he is getting rent of more than Rs.10,000/-. He also possesses 3 Acres of agricultural land from which heis getting income of more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. In all total yearlyincome of the respondent is Rs. 10,00,000/- and he can easily paymaintenance amount claimed by wife and daughters.4.By filing say, husband opposed the petition contending thatwife has completed B.Ed course and has also completed 1st Year M.Sc.She being educated lady is able to maintain herself. She is takingclasses of school going boys and girls and is earning Rs. 10,000/- to15,000/- per month. Wife and daughters have already claimedmaintenance under section 125. He has shown willingness to beareducation expenses of both the daughters. For the academic year2007-08 he has already deposited fees of the daughters. Wife, however, refused to accept the financial support for the daughters foracademic year 2008-09. He is ready to bear the said expenses. He isworking in Vasantrao Naik College as Head of the Department and isBhagyawant Punde {4} FCA-19-2010earning Rs. 18,000/- per month after deductions. It is contended thatneither he has household property nor he gets rent of Rs. 10,000/-. Hedoes not have any agricultural land. The Family Court directed the husband to pay maintenance@ Rs. 3500/- per month each to daughters from 01.01.2010.Maintenance to the wife is rejected in view of order for payment ofpermanent alimony to her passed in Divorce Petition No. A-157/2008.The wife, therefore, has filed above referred two appeals. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is hereinafterreferred to as ‘Wife’ and respondent as ‘Husband’. 5.At the time of final hearing, wife filed purshis on10.11.2025 restricting her claim to the extent of enhancement ofmaintenance amount and permanent alimony awarded to her by theFamily Court. Since the wife has given up the challenge to the divorcedecree, the only question before us is whether the Family Court isjustified in awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the wifeand maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- each to the daughters?6.Heard learned advocate for the wife and learned advocatefor the husband at length. Perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed byboth the parties. Bhagyawant Punde {5} FCA-19-20107.The Family Court has recorded common evidence in boththe petitions. We have scrutinized the evidence to the extent ofmaintenance and permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court.8.By filing affidavit in lieu of chief examination, the wife hasreiterated pleadings of her application for maintenance. The wife incross examination has admitted that husband is lecturer and he drawssalary of Rs. 40,000/- per month, his father draws pension of about25,000/- per month and his brother draws salary of about 35,000/-per month. They are not dependent on the husband. These figures areadmitted by husband in his evidence. The husband has also admittedthat his father was having ancestral property at Latur. His mother ownsa flat at Sanjeevani Apartment and a house property at Universitygate.9.Husband has filed affidavit of in chief and has reiterated hiscontentions in the petition. To the extent of earning, he deposed thathis present gross salary is Rs. 40,000/- per month, his father getsmonthly pension of Rs. 25,000/- and brother Manish earns Rs.35,000/- per month. He has also examined his father in support of hiscase. His father has admitted that the premises where they are stayingand the flat at Sanjivani Apartment are in the name of his wifeSarubai. The premises at Bhavsingpura are rented out. He hasBhagyawant Punde {6} FCA-19-2010agricultural land at Bhavsingpura and village Deonala and he hasagricultural income from it. He has also admitted having ancestralhouse at Latur. It has also come in the evidence that he is gettingpension of Rs. 25,000/- and his son Manish is employed havingindependent income.10.Record shows that husband’s gross salary at that point oftime was Rs. 1,14,607/- per month. With legitimate deductionsincluding income tax, statutory liabilities such as provident fund, society dues, co-operative society dues, LIC etc. his take home salarywas Rs. 62,816/- per month. The Family Court has found thesedeductions bonafide.11.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, parties have filedtheir affidavits of income, assets and liabilities. Husband has stated inhis affidavit that he is getting fixed pension of Rs. 1,02,350/- and hehas no other earning source except pension. He has purchased a rowhouse in September-2023 for Rs. 39,00,000/- for which he hasobtained loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and is paying EMI of Rs.48,479/-. Except this row house, he does not have any immovableproperty. He is paying Rs. 10,000/- towards investment in mutualfunds, which is in the name of his minor daughter Ishwhari, who isstudying in 3rd standard in Holycross English School. He has to pay feesBhagyawant Punde {7} FCA-19-2010of Rs. 2,000/- per month and travelling charges of Rs. 1500/-. He issuffering from high blood pressure and is required to take regularmedical treatment for which he has to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month. Earlier, he was paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as house rent to the wifeand Rs. 3,500/- each for his daughters. This Court increased theamount of maintenance to the daughter to Rs. 7,500/- per month from01.10.2014. The said amount was increased by this Court vide orderdated 07.02.2018 to Rs. 12,500/- each per month from January-2018.Thus, he is paying total maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to thedaughters. He has already deposited amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- towardspermanent alimony to the wife. During the arguments, husband hasshown willingness to incur marriage expenses of both the daughters. 12.In her affidavit wife has stated that Family Court hasawarded meager amount towards permanent alimony, which she hasnot withdrawn. She has further stated that the husband is paying EMIof more than Rs. 50,000/- and he has also admitted that formaintaining her daughter with him he is incurring expenditure of Rs.25,000/- per month. According to her, the husband has suppressed hisdeposits etc., and her daughters are entitled for same standard ofliving, which is maintained by the husband. The wife’s contention that during service the husband hasBhagyawant Punde {8} FCA-19-2010saved money and same is not disclosed by him in his affidavit appearsto be probable. 13.The Family Court has noted the contention of wife that herdaughters are taking education in English School and their fees wouldbe high and increasing every year. In the light of evidence on recordand taking into consideration the standard of leaving of the parties anddaughters education, we are of the considered view that maintenance@ Rs. 3,500/- each awarded by the Family Court is grossly inadequate. The Family Court has failed to give due weightage to the earning ofhusband and consider the increasing school expenses and othermaintenance charges of the daughters, in view of their growing age. In the order dated 02.12.2014, this Court after taking intoconsideration the gross salary of husband of Rs. 1,14,607/- and histake home salary Rs. 62,816/- directed him to pay monthlymaintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- to each daughter from 01.10.2014.Thereafter, by order dated 07.02.2018, this Court directed the husbandto pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,500/- each to daughters fromJanuary-2018. 14.Taking into consideration the fact that now 7 years havepassed and considering the affidavit of income, assets and liabilitysubmitted by the husband, rate of inflation, and the fact that husbandBhagyawant Punde {9} FCA-19-2010is drawing monthly pension of Rs. 1,02,350/-, we are of the consideredview that amount of Rs. 15,000/- would be a reasonable amount ofmaintenance to each daughter.15.For the above reasons, we are of the view that the FamilyCourt has erred in awarding inadequate permanent alimony of Rs.3,50,000/- to the wife. According to us, additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent alimony would meet the ends ofjustice. Hence, the following order:ORDER(i)Family Court Appeal Nos. 19 of 2010 and 20 of 2010 arepartly allowed.(ii)Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2010 passed by learnedJudge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-157/2008and Petition No. C-24/2008 is modified by enhancing amountof permanent alimony by Rs. 1,50,000/-. The same shall bedeposited by the husband in the Family Court, within 08weeks from the date of uploading of this order.(iii)The maintenance awarded to both the daughters @ Rs.3,500/- per month is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per month toeach daughter.(iv)Rest of the judgment of the Family Court is maintained.(v)Cost of litigation be paid by husband within eight weeks fromthe date of uploading of this order. Bhagyawant Punde {10} FCA-19-2010(vi)In view of disposal of appeals, pending civil applications aredisposed of.(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde