KBP WP312-09.sxw : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.312 OF 2009 Sandip Pandurang Hagawane ..Petitioner V/s. Sou.Ujwala Sandip Hagawane ..Respondent ..... Mr.Dilip Bodke, for petitioner. Mr.D.L.Lad, for respondent. ...... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1] The petitioner – husband has challenged an order passed by the learned Judge of Family Court by which the petitioner – husband has been directed to pay interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the respondent – wife from 11 th February, 2008. The said order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending a petition for divorce filed by the respondent – wife in the year 2007. 2] The challenge by the learned Counsel for petitioner is on various grounds. First ground is that the application made by respondent – wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been dismissed on 20 th February, 2006 by the learned Magistrate and the said order as well as the findings recorded therein have not been subjected to any challenge. His next submission is that there is nothing placed on record to KBP WP312-09.sxw : 2 : show that the petitioner was earning Rs.4500/- to Rs.9000/- per month. In written arguments it was disclosed that the husband had no income except income from agriculture. He submitted that there was no reason for the wife to stay away from the petitioner. 3] I have considered the submissions. The application for maintenance under Section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was filed by respondent – wife in June 2003 which has been decided in February 2006. Thereafter, in the year 2007 a petition for divorce has been filed by the respondent wife against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Pending the said petition, the impugned order has been passed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are staying separately. The petitioner has not disclosed his income in his reply filed to application for maintenance. The petitioner has not chosen to disclose his true income before the Court. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court has come to a conclusion on the basis of available material on record that his income will have to be taken at Rs. 4500/- per month. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding. Apart from the fact that application under Section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was filed in the year 2003, the findings recorded in the said proceedings are never conclusive. The monthly maintenance fixed by the family court is reasonable. 4] Hence, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court. It is clarified that above observations are made only for a limited purpose for considering the prayer for grant of interim maintenance. ( A.S.OKA, J. )