1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1631 OF 2008 1. Bhavana Nitin Shah & anr. Petitioners vs. Nitin Chimanlal Shah Respondent Mr.Ajit S. Karwande for the petitioners. Respondent present in person. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 6th August, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in person. 2. The petitioners have filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act") being Petition No.C-136/2006 for maintenance. The respondent has also filed proceedings for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioners in the proceedings under section 18 of the said Act filed interim application at Exhibit "8" for grant of interim alimony. This application was disposed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order thereby granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,000/- to petitioner no.2. The petitioners have approached this Court for 2 enhancement of maintenance. 3. Mr.Karwande, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had filed an application for direction to the respondent to produce certain documents. The learned Judge of the Family Court by his order dated 3.7.2007 directed the respondent to produce the abovesaid documents and further observed that in case the respondent fails to produce the said documents, necessary inference would be drawn against him. Mr.Karwande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that inspite of this order, the respondent failed to produce abovesaid documents and therefore adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondent while considering his application for grant of interim maintenance. 4. The respondent, who appears in person, per contra, submitted that in pursuance to the above order dated 3.7.2007, he has produced before the Family Court the relevant documents. He has further produced copies of those documents before me for perusal. 5. In order to fix the quantum of maintenance, the Family Court considered the Income Tax Returns of the respondent and came to the conclusion that respondent must be earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- 3 per month and accordingly granted interim maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.4000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively. The Family Court did not refer to the other documents produced by the respondent as same are not relevant for the purpose of fixation of interim maintenance. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in person, I do not find any illegality or error in the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the Family Court so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned order in the exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to argue about the relevancy of the above at the time of final hearing of their petition under section 18 of the said Act. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]