1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.930 of 2008 Ketan Premani Petitioner Vs. Jasminder Ketan Premani Respondent Ms.Seema Sarnaik for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. February 25, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Ms.Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/12/2007 thereby rejecting the application filed at Exhibit 82. 2. The parties were married on 23/5/1991 and the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act. On 19/1/1993 son Aditya was born and five years later on 6/2/1998 the second son Pranav was born to the couple. The husband alleged that on 26/9/2005 he was forced to leave the matrimonial house and on or about 30/12/2005 he has filed a divorce petition on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty i.e. under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the same has been registered as M.J. 2 Petition No.A-116 of 2006. Pending the said petition an order was passed by the Family Court for maintenance pendente lite on 12/10/2006 on an application filed by the wife and the learned Judge of the Family Court was pleased to fix the maintenance amount at Rs.50,000/- per month for the wife and two children including all their expenses like residence etc. 3. As per the husband the wife left Mumbai along with two sons who have been admitted in a school at Chennai and, therefore, he filed the application at Exhibit 82 to reduce the amount of Rs.50,000/- fixed by way of monthly maintenance and bring it down to Rs.15,000/-. Two main grounds were advanced in support of this prayer viz. the cost of living in Chennai is 30 per cent less than the cost of living at Mumbai and at Chennai the respondent wife is staying with her brother and mother. It was, therefore, prayed that the amount of Rs.20,000/- expected to be spent for the residential arrangement in Mumbai is not required to be spent by her and from the remaining Rs.30,000/-, an amount of Rs.15,000/- would be sufficient for the monthly maintenance of all the three in view of the cost of living at 3 Chennai. The respondent - wife filed her reply to this application and opposed it. She claimed that even the amount of Rs.50,000/- per month fixed by way of interim maintenance was a pittance, if regards be had to the income of the husband and his lavish way of living. She also alleged that she had to leave Mumbai under forced circumstances and that the husband does not have any one else to support except his aged mother. 4. I have perused the order dated 12/10/2006 passed by the Family Court fixing the interim maintenance amount at Rs.50,000/- per month and the said order nowhere states that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was earmarked for the residential arrangement in Mumbai. The Family Court had noted that the salary certificate submitted by the husband was unreliable and when the Income Tax Returns were placed before the Court for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, it noted that the yearly salary / income was shown at Rs.29,33,038/- and Rs.29,84,038/- respectively. Though the Family Court may not be very right in calculating the tax liability of the husband, even if it is presumed that he was required to pay 1/3rd by 4 way of income tax, still the net monthly salary available to him would exceed Rs.1,60,000/- and, therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- fixed by way of interim maintenance for the wife and two sons cannot be termed to be either unreasonable or an amount which is required to be reduced on account of cost of living at Chennai being allegedly less than at Mumbai. There is no doubt that the children are grown up, the elder son is of 15 years of age and the younger one is 10 years of age and they have every right to live in comfort commensurate with the father’s earnings. Though some of the reasons set out by the learned Judge of the Family Court may not be correct, the fact remains that the husband has failed to make out a case calling for reduction in the interim maintenance amount only because the wife along with her children had shifted to Chennai and she was living with her brother and mother. The interim maintenance amount must be fixed on the basis of the earnings and the life style that the husband lives. The trial Court, therefore, did not commit any error in rejecting the application at Exhibit 82 by the impugned order and hence there is no case made out to cause interfere with the same in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5 5. The same is hereby rejected summarily. 6. However, it is directed that the pending divorce petition i.e. M.J. Petition No.A-116 of 2006 shall be heard and decided by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31st July 2008. (B.H.MARL