VISHNU SHANKERDAN ADNANI Vs. NANISHA VISHNU ADNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the respondent'; filed I. J. Petition No. 307 of 1980 in the City Civil Court, Bombay, against the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to me 'the appellant') for a decree of divorce, for custody of a minor child by name Mumta and for maintenance and suitable alternative place of residence for herself and the said minor child and for other interim reliefs under Sections 13(l) (i-a), 25(1) and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It appears that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition a Notice of Motion was taken out by the respondent praying for maintenance for herself and the child as also seeking an order of injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with or obstructing her from using one bed-room exclusively and a hall and kitchen jointly with the appellant in the flat situate at Cuff Castle, 16th Floor, Colaba, Bombay, which was the matrimonial home for the couple. It further appears that an order was passed on 29th April 1930 to the effect that the appellant be restrained from interfering with of obstructing the respondent from using one bed-room exclusively and a hall and kitchen jointly with the appellant. So long as the prayer for maintenance was concerned, it was ordered that the appellant do pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 as maintenance for her and Rs. 500.00 as maintenance for Munta and a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 as costs and the expenses of the petition. In so far as the order of maintenance was concerned, an appeal was preferred by the appellant wherein it was varied was the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200.00 per month being the maintenance for the respondent as also for the expenses of the child. On the impugned order being passed later the said appeal and withdrawn by the appellant.

(2.) The learned trial judge while hearing the main petition framed the following issues:-

(3.) On the submissions made before me the only point that arises for my consideration is whether the learned trial judge erred in any manner in awarding the maintenance to the respondent and the child and whether the order passed in that regard requires to be modified so as to reduce the quantum of maintenance. Nov. 30, 1983