1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1910 of 2011 Fahad Taufiq Qazi ...Petitioner Versus Nasreen Shaikh & Another ...Respondents Ms.Nazneen Ichhaporia for Petitioners. Mr. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 14th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Respondent herein has filed petition for maintenance in the Family Court at Bandra, being Petition No E-19/2010 . In the said petition respondent No.1 had filed Interim Application No.198 of 2010 Exhibit 7 so as to seek interim maintenance during the pendency of the main application. The petitioner has not filed affidavit in reply to the interim application. 2 2. Learned Judge of the Family Court , Court Room No.6 has by Order dated 1st March, 2011 ordered the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.7000/- by way of maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 9th August, 2010 till disposal of the main application. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the record and he has specifically observed that the petitioner has not filed any affidavit in reply to the interim application and in the written statement there is no specific averment to say as to what is the income of the present applicant. 3. Before this Court, some efforts were made to draw the attention of the Court to the Income Tax papers. However, such papers can not be gone into as they were not before the learned Judge at the time of passing the order dated 1st March, 2010. 4. Before this Court, the learned Advocate for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner is working in a Call Centre. She orally stated across the bar that his income is within the range of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. This word of the petitioner will have to be accepted. She also submitted that the petitioner has to take care of her mother. Looking to these two admissions across the bar and looking to the 3 fact that the sum of Rs.7000/- is ordered to be paid, I hold that the learned Judge of the Family Court has conducted proper exercise in granting maintenance in the sum of Rs.7000/-. No specific particulars are given in the written statement as to who are the other brothers of the petitioner and what was the job of the other brothers and how the petitioner’s mother is taken care of. Mere assertion that the petitioner has to take care of his mother cannot be accepted. In any case, apart from the monthly income of the petitioner, his return from the investments is also to be considered. Looking from all angles, the figure of Rs.7000/- granted by the Family Court is reasonable. There is no need to interfere. Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)