LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-2

NAYANA S GOBBUR Vs. SUDHIR S GOBBUR

Decided On February 03, 2015
Nayana S Gobbur Appellant
V/S
Sudhir S Gobbur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-wife has questioned the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 2nd September 2013 passed by the Family Court No.3, Mumbai in Petition No.A-115 of 2007 and Petition No.B-1 of 2008 to the extent of quantum of maintenance awarded to her minor daughter namely Revati on the ground that the same is inadequate and not in consonance with the earnings of the Respondent-husband. The Appellant-wife had filed a petition before the Family Court at Bandra bearing M.J.Petition No.A-115 of 2007 against the Respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, for maintenance for herself and her daughter Revati and for future expenses of the Appellant and towards education and marriage expenses of their daughter. The Respondenthusband has also preferred a petition bearing No.B-1 of 2008 against the Appellant/Petitioner for declaration of ownership in two properties and also claimed injunction of various sorts

(2.) It is to be noted here that the Respondent-husband has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court No.3, Mumbai dated 2nd September 2013. In other words it can safely be said that the Respondent has accepted the same. The learned Family Court passed a decree of divorce. Maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was directed to be paid by the Respondent to the minor daughter Revati while retaining the custody of her with the wife. Visitation right were granted to the Respondent. A decree of partition was passed as regards certain properties by holding that the appellant has 50% share in the same.

(3.) As stated hereinabove, the Appellant-wife has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 2nd September 2013 to the extent of quantum of the maintenance awarded to her minor daughter Revati by the present Appeal on the ground that the same is inadequate and not in consonance with the earnings of the husband. As the Respondent-husband has not challenged the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, we are refraining ourselves from narrating the facts which deals with the aspect of divorce of the parties as per Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and are restricting ourselves to the extent of challenge to the quantum of the maintenance granted to the minor daughter by the impugned order.