SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, March 13, 2025

Printed For: V Harshavardan, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Journal Publications, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3575 : (2022) 2 Mah LJ 447 : (2022) 1 AIR Bom R 167

In the High Court of Bombay

(Nagpur)
MAINTENANCE TO SON : ENHANCEMENT
(BEFORE A.S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.)

Pradeep S/O Babanrao Wankhede … Appellant;

Versus
Sakashit S/O Pradeep Wankhede … Respondent.
F.C.A. Nos. 43 of 2019 and 16 of 2020
Decided on October 13, 2021
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956), S. 20 — Maintenance — Order
awarding maintenance of Rs. 5000/- p.m. to son — Enhancement in maintenance —
Petitioner son of respondent father assailed order on ground that maintenance is meagre
and needs to be enhanced — Since petitioner is meritorious student and taking education in
IIT Dhanbad, quantum of maintenance could not be said to be just and reasonable — Father
of petitioner is liable to make provision for maintenance of petitioner — Respondent father
is doing service and his monthly salary is around Rs. 45,000/- — Amount of maintenance
enhanced from-Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7500/- p.m. to petitioner.
(Paras Hand 12)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
R.M. Patwardhan for appellant (in FCA No. 43 of 2019) and for respondent (in FCA
No. 16 of 2020)
Ms. Amruta Gupta for respondent (in FCA No. 43 of 2019) and for appellant (in FCA
No. 16 of 2020)

Page: 448

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.A. SANAP, J.:— Both these appeals arise out of judgment and decree, dated 9-1-
2019, passed in Petition No. C-55 of 2015, under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur allowed
the petition and awarded the maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of
the petition i.e. 27-10-2015. The petitioner, who is the son, has assailed the
impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the amount of monthly
maintenance is meagre and needs to be enhanced. The respondent-father assailed the
judgment and decree on the ground that the amount of maintenance awarded by the
impugned judgment and decree is excessive and exorbitant.
2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment. Parties in this
judgment would be referred by their nomenclature in the petition filed before the
Family Court, Nagpur.
3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:
The petitioner is the son of the respondent. The parents of the petitioner got
married on 25-6-2000. The petitioner was born in 2001. It is stated that after
marriage the dispute arose between the parents of petitioner. The respondent used to
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, March 13, 2025
Printed For: V Harshavardan, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Journal Publications, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

demand the salary of his mother. The respondent ill-treated and tortured his mother.
The relatives tried to settle the dispute however, due to the conduct of the respondent
it was not possible. The mother of the petitioner lodged the complaint at Katol Police
Station and on the basis of the crime registered, under section 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860. The respondent was prosecuted. The mother of the petitioner started
residing with her parents. When the petitioner was born, his parents were living
separately. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner had given notice to the
respondent for divorce by mutual consent and filed the petition for divorce. The
petition was decreed on 21-7-2009 and by the decree of divorce the marriage between
his parents was dissolved.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not bother to maintain
him. His mother borne his education as well as day to day expenses. His mother faced
great difficulties while maintaining him with her meager salary. The respondent did
not bother to inquire about the well-being of the petitioner as well as his mother. The
respondent is doing service as ‘Assistant Teacher’ and his monthly salary is around Rs.
45,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for maintenance @ of Rs. 15,000/- per
month and the education expenses.
5. The respondent filed the reply/written statement and opposed the petition. The
respondent has not denied his liability to maintain the petitioner however, it is his
case that the mother of the petitioner did not allow the respondent to meet his son as
and when he expressed the desire to see and meet his son/petitioner. The mother has
denied the respondent, the pleasure of the company of the petitioner. Similarly, the
mother of the petitioner filed false complaint against him. According to the
respondent, the mother of the petitioner is doing service as an ‘Assistant Teacher’ and
getting monthly salary of

Page: 449

Rs. 48,000/-. The respondent has to maintain his divorcee sister and the daughter of
his sister. He has also to maintain his old aged mother. On these grounds, he prayed
for dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the material placed on
record granted the decree and awarded the maintenance @ of Rs. 5000/-per month.
Both parties being aggrieved, for the reasons stated aforesaid, by filing separate
appeals have come before this Court. We have heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent. We have gone through the
record and proceedings.
7. Ms Amruta Gupta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the meritorious student. The learned Advocate pointed out that in 10th
standard he secured 93% mark. The learned Advocate further pointed out that he
cleared the entrance examination for joining the IIT and got admission in IIT Dhanbad
(Mechanical Stream). The learned Advocate submitted that the mother of the
petitioner spend till date on the education as well as on day to day maintenance of the
petitioner. The learned Advocate submitted that being father, the respondent is
equally responsible to share the maintenance and expenses of the petitioner. The
learned Advocate submitted that considering the monthly salary of the respondent,
the amount of the maintenance quantified by the learned Judge is negligible and
insufficient to meet the bear minimum requirements of the petitioner.
8. The learned Advocate for the respondent has not made any submission
challenging the judgment and decree on merits. The learned Advocate restricted his
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Thursday, March 13, 2025
Printed For: V Harshavardan, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Journal Publications, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

submission to the quantum of the maintenance awarded by the learned Judge of the
Family Court. The learned Advocate submitted that respondent has been equally
sharing the education expenses of the petitioner with his mother. The learned
Advocate submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that divorcee
sister and sister's daughter and old aged mother of the respondent are dependent on
him. The learned Advocate submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has
not taken all these aspects into consideration. The learned Advocate further submitted
that the quantum of monthly maintenance is excessive and exorbitant and therefore, it
needs to be reduced.
9. It is undisputed that the petitioner during the pendency of the litigation has
attained majority. He is studying in IIT Dhanbad. The learned Advocate for the
petitioner submitted across the bar that he is in third year of IIT. The respondent in
his cross-examination has admitted that he is ready to pay the education expenses of
the petitioner. It is seen that the grievance of the respondent is that he was not
allowed access to the petitioner and therefore, there was dispute. In our opinion, this
contention of the respondent does not survive in as much as the petitioner has
attained majority. The petitioner being major can freely meet his father-respondent.
Similarly, the respondent can meet the petitioner. Therefore, this fact would not stand
in the way of the petitioner from getting the maintenance from the respondent.

Page: 450

10. It has come on record that before the birth of the petitioner his parents
separated from each other. The petitioner has been residing with his mother. The
respondent and the mother of the petitioner are serving as a ‘Teachers’. It is therefore
apparent that both are equally responsible to share the maintenance as well as the
education expenses of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner has deposed that
the respondent has not bothered to take care of either the maintenance or education
expenses of the petitioner. It has come on record that the marriage between the
parents of the petitioner was dissolved by decree of divorce on 21-7-2009. It is
therefore seen that the petitioner who happens to be the meritorious child has been
made to face this unfortunate situation. Considering his plight and needs he was
constrained to knock the doors of the Court.
11. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the facts and evidence while
quantifying the maintenance. The learned Judge as can be seen from the judgment
took into consideration the day to day living cost in the ordinary circumstances by a
person. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the sky rocketing
education expenses. It is the grievance of the petitioner that this amount of
maintenance is not sufficient to satisfy his bare minimum requirements. On going
through the evidence and considering the fact that the petitioner is meritorious
student and taking education in JIT Dhanbad, the quantum of maintenance could not
be said to be just and reasonable. In our opinion, considering the facts and evidence,
the grievance made by the respondent that the quantum of maintenance is excessive
and exorbitant cannot be accepted.
12. The respondent being father of the petitioner is liable to make provision for the
maintenance of the petitioner. The respondent is doing service. His monthly salary is
around Rs. 45,000/-. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there are
some other persons dependent on him, the petitioner must be the first priority of the
respondent in the matter of maintenance. If the respondent fails to share the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Thursday, March 13, 2025
Printed For: V Harshavardan, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Journal Publications, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

maintenance and expenses then the mother would be required to bear the
unnecessary burden. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by
the respondent. In view of the aforesaid facts we are of the view that the amount of
maintenance granted @ of Rs. 5000/- per month could not be said to be just and
reasonable. In our opinion, considering the fact that the parents of the petitioner are
doing service and having their own maintenance and responsibilities, the reasonable
amount of a maintenance is required to be quantified. In our view, in the facts and
circumstances, the monthly maintenance of Rs. 7500/- would be just and reasonable.
Accordingly, we quantify Rs. 7500/- as monthly maintenance payable by the
respondent to the petitioner from the date of the petition i.e. 27-10-2015. As far as
the education expenses are concerned, the respondent and the mother of the
petitioner shall share it equally. The respondent and the mother of the petitioner on
their own must device the mechanism to obtain the statement of the education
expenses and to share the same. In view of

Page: 451

the above, we conclude that the Family Court Appeal filed by the respondent bearing
No. 43 of 2019 deserves to be dismissed. The Family Court Appeal filed by the
petitioner bearing No. 16 of 2020 is required to be allowed and the order of
maintenance is required to be modified as above. Hence, the following order—

ORDER
i. The Family Court Appeal No. 43 of 2019 stands dismissed,
ii. The Family Court Appeal No. 16 of 2020 is allowed,
ii. The order of the learned Judge of the Family Court awarding the maintenance @
Rs. 5000/- per month is modified. The respondent shall pay Rs. 7500/- per
month to the petitioner towards the maintenance from 27-10-2015. Both the
parents of the petitioner shall equally bear the education expenses of the
petitioner-Sakashit s/o Pradeep Wankhede till he completes his education,
iii. The arrears if any be cleared within period of three months from today by the
respondent.
Both Family Court appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
Order accordingly.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.