Amruta Bhikanlal Lohar And ORS v. Urmila Bhikanlal Lohar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2003 Amruta Bhikanlal Lohar and Another ..APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Urmila Bhikanlal Lohar ..RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2004 Urmila Bhikanlal Lohar ..APPLICANT

VERSUS

Amruta Bhikanlal Lohar and Another ..RESPONDENTS ....

Mr. S.V. Kshirsagar, Advocate h/f Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent.

....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED : 4th MAY, 2016 ORDER :

1.

Heard Mr. Kshirsagar holding for Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent.

2.

The Family Court, Aurangabad, by an order dated 3rd September, 2003 awarded maintenance of Rs.375/- per month to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3.

There is one more matter which is tagged with the present proceedings i.e. Criminal Revision Application No.97/2004 which is 1 / 3

preferred by the original complainant before the Family Court. Application No. 767/2002 came to be filed by the guardian father stating that he has two daughters. It is claimed that the father was unemployed and mother though employed was not maintaining father and the daughters. It is claimed that respondent mother who is employed with the Municipal High School, Masnathpur, Aurangabad was getting salary of Rs.8,726/-.

4.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, Family Court has proceeded to award the maintenance to the daughters as observed hereinabove. The mother questioned the order of grant of maintenance, whereas the daughters questioned the order on the issue of quantum and sought enhancement to Rs.1,500/- p.m. 5.

Both these applications were admitted and no interim order was passed by this Court.

6.

Having regard to the fact that the order of grant of maintenance is holding the field since last thirteen years, no fruitful purpose will be served by showing any indulgence, as the daughters are already grown up. Hence it will be inappropriate to go into the merits and disturb the same 2 / 3

7.

As such, no case of interference is made out. Revision applications are dismissed. The professional fees payable to the learned appointed counsel is quantified at Rs.3,000/-. ( N.W. SAMBRE, J. ) 3 / 3