WP.1524-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1524 OF 2010 Vijay D. Mane ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Nandini @ Jayashri V. Mane & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Pratap Patil, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. R. Tidake, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai dated 15th January, 2010. By the said order, which was passed on the interim application filed by respondent No.1/wife, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court was pleased to grant an interim maintenance, directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and further sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter, towards the interim maintenance, from the date of application i.e. 5th January, 2009. WP.1524-10 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mentally retarded. The petitioner has annexed certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Sangli in which it is stated that the petitioner is mentally retarded to the extent of 50%. It is further submitted that firstly, the petitioner has no source of income, since on account of his disability, he is not in a position to work; secondly the petitioner had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and in the said application, the petitioner/wife had filed an application for interim maintenance wherein an interim maintenance was granted and the said amount was paid by the petitioner till September 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition. It is further submitted that the Principal Judge, Family Court has directed to pay the said amount from January 2009. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner having paid the said maintenance upto September 2009 by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner will have to pay maintenance under S. 125 Cr.P.C. and also under the earlier application filed by the wife. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order, firstly, since the order was passed on interim application for maintenance; WP.1524-10 - 3 - secondly, it has come on record that the petitioner’s family is carrying on business, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no any income. So far as the second submission is concerned, the contention raised by the petitioner herein may be considered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bandra at the time of final hearing of the application under S. 125 Cr.P.C. and the said contention is therefore, kept open. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine. Sd/- [ V. M. KANADE J.]