Bombay High Court
Smt. Megha Wd/O Amol Padole vs Vasantrao S/O Govindaji Padole And ... on 11 February, 2021
Author: N.B. Suryawanshi
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, N.B. Suryawanshi
1 FCA 351.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.351 OF 2014
Smt. Megha wd/o Amol Padole,
Aged 28 years, Occupation-Nil,
R/o. C/o. Shri Subhashchandra Bondre,
Plot No.79, Netaji Nagar,
Behind Old Pardi Naka,
Nagpur. .. Appellant
.. Versus ..
1. Vasantrao s/o Govindaji Padole,
Aged Major, Occupation-Business.
2. Tarabai w/o Vasantrao Padole,
Aged Major, Occupation-Business,
Both R/o. 67B, Vivekanand Nagar,
Behind Sai Mandir, Wardha Road,
Nagpur. .. Respondents
..........
Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Appellant,
Smt. R.S. Dewani, Advocate for Respondents.
..........
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20.01.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.02.2021.
2 FCA 351.14.odt
JUDGMENT [PER : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 by the appellant-daughter-in-law challenges the judgment
of the learned Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. C-84/2008
thereby dismissing the petition filed by her for maintenance against
the father-in-law and mother-in-law.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to this appeal are as under:
The appellant filed petition under Section 19 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the said Act')
inter alia contending that she got married with the respondent's son
Amol on 03.05.2007. After the marriage, she started residing at her
matrimonial home. Amol met with an accident and expired on
21.02.2008. After the death of Amol, the appellant resided at her
matrimonial home with the respondents, but gradually the
respondents severed the relations with the appellant. The
respondents received an amount of Rs.42,98,970/- towards the
death claim of Amol. The appellant was entitled for half share in
the said amount. Further contention is that the respondents also
received other claims like Gratuity, Renewal Commission, Group
Insurance etc. even in that amount, the appellant had half share.
The appellant further averred that the respondents failed to return
3 FCA 351.14.odt
golden ornaments weighing 350 grams and the gift articles received
by her in the marriage. On 16.04.2008, a meeting was called at the
residence of the respondents with the help of the appellant's parents
and other elderly persons, in which a mutual agreement was
executed hurriedly. The appellant and her father could not
understand the contents of the same. Copy of the agreement was
also not supplied to the appellant. Though the appellant was called
after 10 to 15 days from the date of that meeting for the ornaments,
the respondents did not return the ornaments and on the contrary,
lodged a false report against the appellant and her family members.
The appellant claimed that she was unable to maintain herself and
she had no source of income. The respondents drove her out of the
matrimonial home. The estate of the deceased husband of the
appellant was in the custody of the respondents, hence they are
liable to maintain her. She was constrained to issue legal notice on
09.06.2008 calling upon the respondents to return all her claims and
maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents
replied the notice by making false and frivolous allegations. It was
further contended that in the reply-notice the respondents have
alleged that one Tata Safari was given to the appellant. However,
according to the appellant, the said vehicle was purchased in her
name by her husband and she was entitled to take the same with her.
The vehicle was purchased on loan and installment of the same was
4 FCA 351.14.odt
more than Rs.10,000/- per month and as the appellant was unable to
repay the loan installment, she was required to sell out the said
vehicle to satisfy the loan. She further averred that the respondents
have falsely accused that she has intentionally aborted her child.
According to her, the abortion was an accident caused by stress and
trauma. The appellant claimed that due to ill-treatment given to
her, she was compelled to reside at her parental home. Her father
was a retired Government Servant. The appellant needs money for
her basic and other needs, hence she claimed maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month from February-2008.
3. The respondents appeared and resisted the appellant's
claim by filing written statement, thereby denying all the allegations
specifically. They contended that Amol was a L.I.C. Agent and he
had eight policies which were drawn before the marriage by the first
respondent. Since he was nominee to the said policies, he had
received the claim after the death of Amol. The appellant has
relinquished her claim in respect of all the policies in writing on
16.04.2008 in the mutual agreement. The second respondent being
mother and nominee had received the Gratuity, Renewal
Commission, Group Insurance etc. Even the claim for these amounts
was relinquished by the appellant in the mutual agreement dated
16.04.2008, which was executed in a meeting at the house of the
5 FCA 351.14.odt
respondents where the family members of both the sides, so also
some respectable persons of the society were present. The appellant
signed the said mutual agreement in the presence of the Notary and
she had received her 'Stridhan' articles including ornaments and she
had relinquished the other claims. It was further averred that there
was a locker in Yavatmal Urban Co-operative Bank, Deonagar
Branch, Nagpur in the joint name of the appellant and husband
Amol. Amol was operating the locker. All the golden ornaments
weighing 400 grams were kept in the said locker. The appellant had
full knowledge of the locker and she was also nominee to the locker.
After the death of Amol, the appellant became the owner of the
locker. On enquiry about the locker, the respondents came to know
that on 17,01,2008 the locker was lastly operated. On 16.04.2008
i.e. on the date of mutual agreement, the first respondent along with
the appellant and her parents went to the said Bank and opened the
said locker, it was found empty. They stated that their golden
ornaments weighing 400 grams were also kept in the same locker
and the appellant must be aware of their and her ornaments. The
appellant might have taken all the ornaments to her parental home.
They claimed that she may be directed to return their 400 grams
gold. On the date of mutual agreement, Tata Safari vehicle was
given to the appellant, the value of which was Rs.8,50,000/-.
According to the respondents, the said vehicle was given for monthly
6 FCA 351.14.odt
maintenance of the appellant as was mentioned in the agreement.
The appellant had promised to keep the vehicle till her second
marriage and she was to return the same to the respondents after her
second marriage. According to the respondents, Amol was young
when he died and he had no self acquired property and he had not
left behind any property. It was further contended that the appellant
left the matrimonial home on 12.03.2008 when she was seven
months pregnant and she broke all the relations with the
respondents. On 14.03.2008, she aborted the fetus only with an
intention to perform second marriage. Tata Safari was sold by the
appellant without their knowledge. The appellant owned two plots
at Netaji Nagar, Nagpur worth Rs.20 Lakhs. The appellant's father
was getting handsome pension and he was also getting two lakhs
income from 20 acres of irrigated land. Appellant's father had gifted
Maruti-800 Car in the marriage, thus he was a rich man. The
appellant was a qualified lady and her financial condition was good.
According to the respondents, the dispute raised by the appellant did
not relate to marriage, hence Family Court had no jurisdiction. They
further pointed out that the appellant had filed Special Civil Suit
No.1315/2008 for declaration and injunction wherein she had
claimed same reliefs against the respondents, which was subjudice.
They therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7 FCA 351.14.odt
4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant
filed pursis Exh.57 and relinquished her claim of Rs.21,49,485/- in
respect of L.I.C. policies, therefore, her claim for golden ornaments
and monthly maintenance only remained for adjudication.
5. Before the Family Court, the appellant filed affidavit
(Exh.38) in lieu of evidence reiterating the contents of the petition.
She also contended that she was at that stage giving up her claim for
maintenance from 13.12.2009 as her second marriage was
solemnized on that date. In the cross, she could not give any reason
as to why in her petition she did not mention that her in-laws
subjected her to cruelty. She admitted the fact of compromise in the
meeting dated 16.04.2008 and that the settlement was reduced into
writing on stamp paper of Rs.50/- and she signed the said stamp
paper twice, Her mother, uncle and father-in-law have signed below
the said settlement deed. A specific question was asked to her that
"as the appellant agreed with the terms mentioned in that document,
she signed below it, was it true.?" She answered that the document
was written on four pages and she agreed with the terms mentioned
on the pages which she had signed. She admitted the contents on
pages 1, 3 and 4 but she did not agree with the contents on page 2.
The settlement deed therefore was admitted as Exh.58/C. She also
admitted that at the time of settlement, Tata Safari and Maruti-800
8 FCA 351.14.odt
vehicles were given to her. She stated that Maruti-800 was gifted to
her in the marriage by her maternal uncle. She denied that she
aborted the child. She stated that it was a miscarriage for which she
was not required to go to the Hospital. She did not, at any point of
time, hear the name of Sarika Nursing Home, Central Avenue,
Nagpur. She denied that on 12.03.2008 the appellant and her
parental relatives decided that she should solemnise second
marriage. She admitted to have solemnized second marriage, the
decision for it was taken in the year 2009. She further deposed that
in the settlement deed, it was mentioned that amongst other articles
the golden ornaments in the locker should be given to her, however,
the locker was found empty. She admitted to have received the
golden ornaments mentioned in Exh.58, other than those which were
in the locker. She admitted that the locker was in the joint name of
herself and husband Amol and except them, nobody else had a right
to open the same. She stated that she did not enquire with the
concerned bank, as to whether, anybody else had opened the locker
or not after the death of her husband or earlier thereto. According to
her, she was not aware of existence of that locker. She admitted that
Tata Safari was purchased by Amol in her name from his own
income. She admitted to have sold Tata Safari. At the time of selling
it, she did not obtain the consent of her mother-in-law. She also did
not give the share of her mother-in-law from the amount of
9 FCA 351.14.odt
consideration. She admitted that when Tata Safari was purchased,
its value was Rs.8 Lacs. She admitted that it was decided at the time
of settlement that whatever articles and other things she received she
took it and went to her parental home and that she would be
residing at her parental house forever. She further admitted that it
was also decided that there would be no relation between herself and
the respondents. She admitted to have severed the relations with her
in-laws since then. She admitted that she did not produce any
document on record to show that she was entitled for gold of 340
grams from the respondents. She stated that the bills of said gold
were given to her Advocate. She admitted that her second marriage
was fixed in August-2008 and was solemnized in the year 2009. She
thereafter stated that her second marriage was fixed in the year
2009. She denied the other suggestions given to her that her father-
in-law maintained her from March-2008 to August-2008.
6. The respondent no.1 filed his evidence on affidavit
reiterating the contents of the written statement. In cross-
examination, he admitted that the appellant's signature was obtained
on page nos. 1 and 3 of the settlement deed Exh.58. He denied that
page no.2 of that document was blank and therefore it was not
signed by the appellant and the contents of page no.2 were written
lateron. He admitted that there were two stamp papers but denied
10 FCA 351.14.odt
that with an intention to match the context of first page and second
page, the portion of last line on first page was scored out. He denied
that if the portion had not been scored out, it would have matched
the context of page no.3. He denied that initially on page no.3, page
no. 2 was given and it was scored out and at another place page no.3
was written. He denied that the contents on 3rd page at the bottom
in respect of some agreement had been scored out with whitener.
According to him, the said scoring was at the behest of the appellant.
He denied that on the same day of settlement they went to the bank
and opened the locker. On 16.04.2008 he along with appellant and
her parents went to Yavatmal Urban Cooperative Bank, Devnagar
Branch, Nagpur. The Manager opened the said locker but in the said
locker there was no single ornament found was not correct. He
further stated that the same statement made in his written statement
was also false. He stated that he did not sign his written settlement
without reading and understanding. He admitted that though they
did not receive ornaments weighing 400 grams, they did not issue
notice to claim the said ornaments from the appellant. He admitted
that Tata Safari was purchased on finance and after the death of
Amol, he did not repay unpaid instalments.
7. The respondents examined Vijay Marawar as DW-2 in
whose handwriting the settlement deed Exh.58 allegedly written. He
11 FCA 351.14.odt
stated that the said document was executed at the house of the
respondents and the same was in his handwriting. Whatever was
agreed between both the parties was narrated to him and he reduced
it in writing. At that time, ten to twelve persons were present. The
settlement was immediately acted upon. The appellant received
articles from the respondents as per the agreement. The agreement
did not bear his signature. The entire settlement deed was written
on the same day on the stamp paper in one sitting and on completion
of his writing, the parties put their signatures on it. When he was
confronted with the page of Exh.58 wherein whitener was used for
scoring out earlier written portion, he could not say what was
written earlier. According to him, the whitener was applied in his
presence. He denied that reverse side of page no.1 was not written
in the same process and that portion was lateron written in the
absence of Bondre. He denied that, that portion was not signed
because it was written lateron. He admitted that he did not receive
any witness summons and the first respondent called him to the
Court for deposition.
8. The respondents examined Ambadas Gajapure as witness
no.3, who was allegedly present at the time of execution of
settlement deed. According to him, the appellant received all her
articles in terms of the agreement, she admitted that she would not
12 FCA 351.14.odt
claim any right in future against the respondents. He signed Exh.58
at Sr.No.3 on the left side after the writing was completed. According
to him, the appellant told that she wanted Tata Safari vehicle which
she would return after her second marriage. The same was reduced
into writing in the document. The entire dispute was over after
settlement at Exh.58. When he was confronted with the portion
where whitener was applied on some writing in Ex.58, he could not
say what was written which was scored out. He denied the
suggestion that the document was not read over to him and that he
was deposing falsely at the instance of the respondents.
9. Walmik Vaidya was examined as DW-4, who claimed to be
common friend of the appellant and the respondents. He deposed
that he was called by the appellant's father Subhashchandra Bondre
to attend the meeting. At the time of meeting, in the presence of the
witnesses, the appellant was insisting that she did not went to reside
with the respondents. The Agreement/Kkararnama Exh.58 was
executed in the presence of all the parties wherein the appellant
stated to have received all her belongings and other movables back.
She had also taken back two cars one Tata Safari and another
Maruti-800. As per the settlement recorded in the agreement, she
had given up all her claims about the policies and agreed that she
would not claim anything thereafter. The parties signed agreement
13 FCA 351.14.odt
Exh.58.
10. In the cross, he deposed that the marriage of the appellant
and Amol was settled by his mediation. This fact was not mentioned
in his affidavit of evidence. He claimed that he could explain the last
portion of the document which was scored out with whitener.
According to him, after writing the document, it was read over to all
present there and the appellant objected that portion, therefore, that
portion was scored out and both the parties signed at the scored
portion. It was mentioned in the scored portion that the appellant
would take the amount of LIC. However, lateron she stated that she
did not want that amount, hence that portion was scored out. He
admitted that the articles which were expected to be returned were
written at page 3 in the Exh.58, he admitted that both the parties
signed on all pages. He volunteered that back side of first page was
not signed. He denied that nothing was written on the back side of
first page. He admitted that appellant's brother had told him that
being mediator he should return all the articles. He admitted that he
lodged a complaint against the appellant's brother in the Police
Station. He denied rest of the suggestions about he being more
closed to the respondents.
11. The learned Family Court, after assessing the evidence,
14 FCA 351.14.odt
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for maintenance. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant-daughter-in-law has filed the
present appeal.
12. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the
learned Advocate for the respondents.
13. The learned Advocate for the appellant assailed impugned
judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the learned Family
Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The
findings recorded by the Family Court are erroneous and contrary to
the material on record. He submitted that the appellant has led
cogent and reliable evidence to prove her case and the Family Court
ought to have allowed her petition. By pointing out the pleadings,
he argued that the LIC papers and gold ornaments belonging to the
appellant and her deceased husband were entrusted with the
respondents being elder members of the family. He further
submitted that Tata Safari vehicle was in the name of the appellant
and she was entitled to take it with her. As the said vehicle was
purchased on installments and as the appellant was unable to pay
the installments, the vehicle was required to be sold and the loan
was repaid. By taking us through the cross-examination of first
respondent, he submitted that it was admitted that Tata Safari was
15 FCA 351.14.odt
purchased on finance and the first respondent did not repay the
unpaid installments after the death of Amol. He further placed
reliance on the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit
No.1315/2008 filed by the appellant against the respondents for
recovery of amount, declaration and permanent injunction, a copy of
the same was placed on record. He pointed out para 16 of the said
judgment wherein, while deciding the said suit, settlement deed
Exh.58 was considered. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nagpur in that case, after analyzing the evidence, came to the
conclusion that the appellant proved that the alleged mutual
agreement dated 16.04.2008 was bogus and fabricated. The learned
Advocate, therefore, submitted that the Family Court has recorded
perverse finding and the appellant is entitled for return of her golden
ornaments and maintenance till the date of her remarriage.
14. In reply, the learned Advocate for the respondents placed
reliance on the pursis filed by the appellant at Exh.57 wherein the
appellant had given up her claim for the amount of LIC policies. She
submitted that the decision rendered in Special Civil Suit
No.1315/2008 is subject matter of challenge in appeal before this
Court and the findings in that case have not attained finality. She
further argued that the bills of ornaments were not placed on record.
By taking us through the evidence of the appellant, she submitted
16 FCA 351.14.odt
that the appellant had told lies about the abortion. According to her,
since the appellant had sufficient means i.e. two vehicles Tata Safari
and Maruti-800 as well as her jewellery which she received in terms
of the settlement, she was not entitled for maintenance. She further
submitted that in view of Section 19 (2) of the said Act, unless the
coparcenary property of the deceased husband was received by the
respondents, they were not liable to maintain the appellant, since no
coparcenary property of Amol was in possession of the respondents,
they were not liable to maintain her. She, therefore, claimed that
there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant and hence
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. The learned Advocate for the appellant replied argument
of the learned Advocate for the respondents contending that in view
of the fact that the amount of Rs.42,00,000/-received from LIC and
the amounts of Gratuity, Renewal Commission, Group Insurance
Scheme and Club Agents Free Insurance Cover were received by the
respondents, they were holding the property of deceased Amol and,
therefore, they are liable to pay the maintenance to the appellant.
16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate
representing the parties at length and perused the record. On
hearing the rival submissions, following points arise for adjudication:
17 FCA 351.14.odt
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled for maintenance
and return of her golden ornaments?
(ii) Whether the learned Family Court was justified in
rejecting the claim of the appellant for maintenance
and gold ornaments?
17. On close scrutiny of evidence on record, we find that the
appellant has failed to prove that her 350 grams golden ornaments
were with the respondents and she was entitled to receive back the
same from the respondents. She has failed to produce the bills of her
ornaments. Though she has stated that the bills of golden ornaments
were given to her counsel, the same are not produced on record. She
has categorically admitted that she had received the golden
ornaments, which were mentioned in Exh-58. She has further
admitted that the locker in the Bank was in joint name of her and
Amol's and after the death of Amol when they went and opened the
locker, nothing was found in the locker. She has also admitted that
from the death of her husband, till they went to open the locker,
nobody had right to open the locker. Admittedly, she did not enquire
with the Bank Authorities, as to whether, anybody else had opened
the locker. Thus, the appellant has failed to prove that her 350
grams golden ornaments were with the respondents and she was
entitled to receive them back.
18. From the evidence on record, it appears that after the
18 FCA 351.14.odt
death of husband Amol on 21.02.2008, the appellant went to her
maternal home. Though initially the respondents were in contact
with her, gradually they severed relations with her. The respondents
admitted to have received LIC claim amount of Rs.42,00,000/-
(which was the subject matter of Special Civil Suit No.1315/2008).
The second respondent has received the amounts like Gratuity,
Renewal Commission, Group Insurance Scheme and Club Agent Free
Insurance Cover of deceased Amol. Therefore, in terms of Section
19 (a) of the said Act, it can be safely held that the respondents were
holding estate, the same can be termed as estate of Amol. Section 21
defines dependents and a widow of the deceased is a dependent so
long as she does not remarry. Under Section 22 of the said Act, the
heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain dependents of the
deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.
Thus, these provisions clearly recognize the entitlement of a
widowed daughter-in-law to the right of maintenance. In
Madhukar .vs. Shalu, 2013 (6) Mh.L.J.391 which is authored one of
us (Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar), it was held that Sections
19 and 21 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the said
Act') creates first obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-
law on father-in-law. It was also held that the burden of the father-
in-law shifts to father of widow only in case of inability of father-in-
law. The circumstances in which or extent to which the father-in-law
19 FCA 351.14.odt
obliged to discharge obligation is regulated by Section 19 of the said
Act. It was further held that object of Section 19 of the Act was to
recognize the right of widowed daughter-in-law to receive
maintenance from either of sources mentioned in that section. The
widowed daughter-in-law was held to be entitled to maintenance
from 'other property' or from estate of her husband. In absence of
that the liability to maintain the widowed daughter shifts on the
father.
19. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case,
it is clear that the claim amounts received on death of Amol were
with the respondents. The appellant has proved that she was unable
to maintain herself and the respondents have neglected and refused
to maintain her. The contention of the respondents that since the
appellant was given Tata Safari and Maruti-800 vehicles and
jewellery, she had sufficient means to maintain herself is liable to be
rejected at the threshold. There is no evidence brought on record
by the respondents to show that the appellant was able to maintain
herself. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the respondents were having sufficient means to maintain the
appellant from the estate of her deceased husband. The respondents
sought to rely upon Exh.58 to claim that the appellant had given up
all her claims, it does not appeal to us. Exh.58 since has been held to
20 FCA 351.14.odt
be a bogus and fabricated document by the competent Civil Court in
Special Civil Suit No.1315/2008 and the same being the subject
matter of the first appeal pending in this Court, we refrain to make
any comments on the admissibility of the said document. Fact
remains that the appellant has disputed page no.2 of Exh.58,
wherein she had allegedly given up all her claims.
20. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence on record in the proper perspective. It has ignored the date
of remarriage given by the appellant as 13.12.2009 in examination-
in-chief and has erroneously observed that the date of remarriage of
the appellant has not come on record. This finding being contrary to
the record reflects non application of mind on the part of the learned
Family Court. Further finding of the learned Family Court that at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance for 18 months the
appellant was entitled of Rs.1,80,000/- and since vehicle Tata Safari
worth Rs.8,00,000/- was given to her, she had received more amount
than claimed, is also erroneous and to that extent perverse, as the
learned Family Court has ignored the relevant aspect that Tata Safari
vehicle was taken on loan and installment of Rs.10,000/- per month
was required to be paid. The first respondent admitted in his cross
that he did not pay any installments of Tata Safari after the death of
Amol. The evidence of appellant that the said vehicle was required
21 FCA 351.14.odt
to be sold, as she was unable to pay the installment and the loan
amount was cleared, is ignored by the learned Family Court. The
finding recorded by the learned Family Court, while denying
maintenance to the appellant, are contrary to the evidence on record.
The most important aspect of the respondent having received the
claim amounts of the deceased Amol in which the appellant had
share has been erroneously ignored by the learned Family Court.
While denying maintenance to the appellant, the provisions of
Sections 19, 21 and 22 of the said Act were misread and
misconstrued by the learned Family Court and it ignored the object
and purport of the said provisions. The learned Family Court has
given undue weightage to the abortion/miscarriage of the appellant,
which had no bearing to the entitlement of maintenance of the
appellant. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the
learned Family Court that as the appellant has admitted that her
father was a retired employee of railway and was maintaining her
when she had been to the parental home and, therefore, the
appellant was not entitled for maintenance from the respondents. In
the light of ratio of Madhukar (supra), this finding is unsustainable.
21. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the considered view
that the appellant is entitled for maintenance for the period between
21.02.2008 to 13.12.2009 i.e. from the date of death of Amol till her
22 FCA 351.14.odt
remarriage. Since the respondents are holding the claim amounts of
deceased Amol of more than Rs.42 Lacs, they are holding the estate
of the deceased husband of the appellant and hence they are liable to
pay the maintenance to the appellant. The points as framed are
answered accordingly. Taking into consideration the status of the
parties and the material on record, we are of the opinion that the
maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month would meet the
ends of justice. Hence the following order :
ORDER
i) Family Court Appeal No.351 of 2014 is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment passed by the Family Court No.2, Nagpur in Petition No.C.84 of 2008, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month for the period between 21.02.2008 to 13.12.2009, within a period of four weeks from today. The claim for return of gold ornaments is rejected.
iii) The respondents shall pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant towards the litigation expenses.
iv) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(N.B. Suryawanshi, J.) (A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
Gulande Digitally signed by
Abhimanyu Abhimanyu Gulande
Gulande Date: 2021.02.11
14:24:09 +0530