:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2008 Balakdas Hanumandas Bairagi ..Appellant Vs. Vanita Balakdas Bairagi ..Respondent Mr. V.D. Raut for appellant. Mr. Kedar Prabhu for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. Dated: July 14, 2008. Dated: July 14, 2008. Dated: July 14, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Raut the learned counsel for the appellant-husband. Mr. Prabhu appears for the respondent-wife. 2. This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the Family Court on 5/2/2008 in M.J. Petition No. A-298 of 2005 and the decree reads as under:- "The petition is allowed. The marriage solemnised between the parties is hereby :2: dissolved by decree of divorce. The respondent shall pay Rs.2000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of this order." 3. The husband has not challenged the decree of divorce and he is aggrieved by the order directing maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and certain observations made by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court in the impugned Judgment. Mr.Raut informed us that the appellant is facing trial in a criminal case and the observations made by the learned Principal Judge on Exhs.28 and 29 may prejudice his defence in the criminal case. Though the learned Principal Judge has clarified sufficiently, as a matter of precaution we reiterate that the pending criminal case in which the appellant-husband is an accused shall be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in the decree under challenge. 4. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, in fact, the order does not call for any :3: interference. Though the learned Principal Judge observed that both the parties did not place on record their respective salary slips, the fact remains that the appellant - husband woks as an Officer with Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and the wife works as a Clerk in a private school. The appellant-husband has a gross salary of Rs.20,051/- for the month of February 2008 and he is required to pay income tax of Rs.6,893/- at least in the month of February, 2008 and that may not be the amount of income tax that is deducted every month from his salary. On the face of the appellant’s salary in excess of Rs.20,000/- per month, we are satisfied that the maintenance fixed at Rs.2000/- per month from the date of the order cannot be termed as erroneous or on the higher side and, therefore, we do not find any case made out to interfere with the same. We are also informed that the couple had a daughter and she was brought up by the mother for more than 10 years. Unfortunately on the day the impugned decree was pronounced, the daughter died, but the fact remains that for almost more than 10 years, it was the respondent-wife who spent on her upbringing, including her education and :4: medical expenses etc. 5. The appeal, therefore deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. The deposited amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent-wife. 6. Civil Application No. 79 of 2008 does not survive and the same shall stand disposed off. (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)