1 wp2376-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPLICATION JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.2376 of 2011 Mr.Uttam Parshuram Patil .. Petitioner v/s. Smt.Monica Uttam Patil ..Respondent Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as said learned Judge) thereby granting prayer of the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights in marriage petition No.173 of 2008. It is noticed that an application for maintenance during the pendency of the petition was filed and it was to be decided along with the main petition. The learned Judge has in paragraph 14 given some reasons to deny maintenance. He has ofcourse noted that the application 2 wp2376-11.sxw under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class. It appears that he was impressed by the said fact and maintenance was not granted in the trial court by the said learned Judge. 2. In the Civil Appeal No.126 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Kalyan, application for maintenance was filed by the respondent. Reply to the same is filed by the petitioner and the learned District Judge at Kalyan has by Order dated 30.10.2010 granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. Similarly, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- has been granted to Devyani and Madhavi respectively from the date of application dated 23.3.2010. This order is challenged by the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the impugned order there is a reference in paragraph 4 of the said order that the petitioner is a Contractor and Developer and earns a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The said learned Judge has noted this figure as the basis for fixing the grant of maintenance. Learned Counsel appearing on 3 wp2376-11.sxw behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is unemployed. In a question asked to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to who supplies food and other necessary articles to the petitioner, the learned Counsel had no specific answer. All this clearly goes to show that the petitioner has not placed his cards before this Court. The learned District Judge-I, Kalyan has granted maintenance at nominal rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the respondent wife and at the sum of Rs.750/- per month to each of the child. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the learned Judge has rightly arrived at the said figures. In my view, this is not a case where the Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is required to be dismissed. Hence following order is passed. ORDER i. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]