Jyoti Gajanan Rumkar v. Gajanan Ramdas Rumkar Etc. Etc.
2019-03-01
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, N.V.RAMANA
body2019
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. In this matter, vide order dated 08.01.2018, notice was issued limited to the extent of determination of maintenance amount. Pursuant to this, we made an attempt to settle the matter once and for all, however, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that his client is not in a position to give a lump-sum amount to the petitioner and thus, the endeavor to settle failed. 4. Taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we modify the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein Rs. 12,000 per month was allowed to the appellant-wife towards the maintenance of her daughter, son and herself, and increase it to Rs. 15,000 per month from the date of this order. The impugned judgment is modified only to the aforementioned extent. 5. The appeals are allowed in the afore-stated terms.