1 WP 214.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2011 Mrs. Rupali Jagdish Khaire. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Jagdish Dattatraya Khaire. ... Respondent. Mr. Kedar J. Patil for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 7th APRIL 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent though served with the notice. The Petitioner herein has filed proceedings before the learned Judge, Senior Division, Panvel (hereinafter referred to as the said Court) for maintenance in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 being Special Suit No. 202 of 2009. 2. The Petitioner herein filed application for interim maintenance at Exhibit 5. Said application was decided by the said Court on 11th October 2010 and the Respondent herein is directed to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. with effect from 11th October 2010 i.e. the date of the 2 WP 214.11.sxw order. This order is challenged by the Petitioner by filing this Writ Petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the stage of admission of this Petition. 4. The learned Judge directed the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from 11th October 2010 i.e. the date of the order till disposal of the main Petition. This order is challenged by the Petitioner – wife as according to her quantum of maintenance granted in her favour is inadequate. 5. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent is running a business in the name of Mangala Enterprises and has substantial income. According to him, on the website certain representations are made on behalf of said Mangala Enterprises to tell the people at large that the turn-over of the Respondent’s business is in crores. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Judge should have considered the income of the Respondent in the proper perspective and he should have arrived at a higher figure than what has been granted. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is true that in an application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner is receiving Rs.1,500/-. However, the grant of Rs.2,000/- per month in the main proceedings is too low. Taking into consideration the income of the Respondent, he pressed for 3 WP 214.11.sxw enhancement of the quantum of maintenance. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that main application for maintenance came to be filed on 1st July 2009 and interim application was also filed thereabout. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the maintenance ought to have been granted with effect from 1st July 2009 and to that extent also the order is wrong. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. In the impugned order there is a reference to the income tax return filed by the Respondent and the learned Judge has treated the income of the Respondent at Rs. 80,000/- per annum. This would mean that the monthly income of the Respondent would be in the vicinity of Rs. 6,500/-. Except alleging that the Respondent is running the industrial establishment having large turnover, there is nothing stated in particular to show that he is earning income of Rs.80,000/- per annum. It is true that in the website some representations are made saying that the turnover is about 0.5 crores. However, I am not prepared to accept that material as a binding material for the purposes of appreciating the income figure of the Respondent. According to me, the data mentioned in the website is only to draw attention of the various customers and merely because a particular turnover is mentioned in the said website it cannot be treated as a truthful data. The Petitioner has not been able to place any specific material to accept the claim of the Petitioner that the 4 WP 214.11.sxw Respondent is earning Rs.0.5 crores. Even if some more amount is added to the income of the Respondent, amount by way of return on investments, the income of the Respondent may not be more than Rs.9,000/- or so. It is to be noted that the Petitioner has been granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. While passing the impugned order the learned Judge has not disturbed the said grant. This will mean that the Petitioner will get a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The Petitioner may find that amount as inadequate. However, the income of the Respondent is a material aspect for the purposes of fixing the quantum of maintenance. That exercise has been properly carried out by the learned Judge and no interference is required in the impugned order. 8. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order directing the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner Rs.2,000/- per month ought to have been granted from the date of the application i.e. 1st April 2009. I had inquired with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the relevant dates. He informed the Court that the Petitioner was in need of the money from the Respondent as she was unable to maintain herself since 2006. The application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed in or about 2007 and maintenance was granted to the Petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2007. This will mean that the Petitioner did not file application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. promptly. That apart, after having 5 WP 214.11.sxw received an order of maintenance for Rs.1,500/- per month in the year 2007, the Petitioner did not file the Suit for maintenance immediately but waited for two years and it is only on 1st July 2009 the Suit for maintenance was filed. All these dates and the conduct on part of the Petitioner would clearly go to show that she was indolent in filing the proper proceeding to secure maintenance. Looking to the relevant dates, the learned Judge has used discretion in proper manner and therefore grant of maintenance with effect from 11th October 2010 is correct. 9. In my view, there is no error committed by the learned Judge in granting application for maintenance from 11th October 2010. To that extent, the argument is required to be rejected. 10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the Petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 11. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the Petition :- (i) The Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. 12. It is clarified that the Court hearing Special Suit No. 202 of 2009 shall decide the said Suit without being influenced by the text of this order. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)