N.W. Sambre DECISION
N.W. Sambre, J.
1. Heard the respective counsel.
2. The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the Family Court No. 3, Bandra, Mumbai below Exhibit 15, an application for grant of interim maintenance in Petition No. C-69 of 2018.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under:
The petitioner was blessed with two sons. Late Bhupinder, who was married to respondent no. 1 on 12th December, 2004 and died on 21st May, 2015. Respondent no. 2, son was born out of the above marriage.
The mother of respondent no. 1 died in the year 2016, whereas her father died in February, 2017. It is her case that she has no independent source of earning and she and her son are completely dependent on the earnings of the petitioner.
4. It is, in this background, respondent no. 1 preferred the proceedings under Sections 19 and 22 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) with a prayer for grant of maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- to petitioner no. 2 to the petition before the Family Court.
5. The claim was resisted by the present petitioner-original respondent thereby alleging that apart from the fact that the present petitioner is paying maintenance to the respondents and has provided accommodation, an expenses of Rs. 90,000/- are incurred by the petitioner so as to meet day-to-day requirement, educational expenses etc.. The break-up to that effect has been given in the reply filed to the main petition before the Family Court.
6. Since the respondent no. 1 claimed to have neglected to maintain by the petitioner, the application Exhibit 15 seeking interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Act came to be moved claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for respondent no. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- per month to respondent no. 2, son.
7. Vide impugned order dated 28th January 2020, the Family Court has allowed the prayer partly and granted maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month to respondent no. 1, whereas Rs. 30,000/- per month to respondent no. 2. As such this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-original respondent would invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 19, Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of the Act so as to claim that the maintenance ought to have been claimed by the respondent no. 1 only after demonstrating that she was unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or from the estate of her parents.
9. Shri. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would urge that the aforesaid legal provision is ignored by the Court below while allowing the application and that being so, the order goes contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act.
10. Further submission is even if presuming that the respondents are entitled for maintenance, still fact remains that exorbitant maintenance is awarded, as the Court below have failed to consider the liability of the petitioner to maintain himself, who was a cancer patient, his aged wife, his other son and his family.
11. Shri. Joshi would also invite attention of this Court to the fact that the respondents are provided with accommodation in the house owned by the petitioner. According to Shri. Joshi, the petitioner is incurring expenses about Rs. 95,000/- per month on the respondents. Shri. Joshi then would urge that the award of maintenance is as such completely disproportionate to the known source of........