1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 OF 2008 Sarala @ Payal Ashok Adwani Vs. Ashok Rizumal Adwani Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri U. N. Vyas Adv. for petitioner. Shri C. A. Joshi Adv. for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th APRIL, 2009. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Akola on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby he granted Rs. 2000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to the petitioner. 2. Application has been filed by husband-respondent against the petitioner-wife for divorce. After the service of the 2 summons the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 24 claiming interim maintenance as well as expenses for fighting the litigation. It was contended by her that respondent was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month since he has a Mobile Phone Shop as well as he is in service. She claims maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses. The said application was opposed by the respondent-husband. His contention is that he is serving in a Wine Shop and is getting a salary of Rs. 1200/- to 1500/- per month. He has no other source of income and therefore he cannot pay the maintenance as claimed. 3. Learned Judge of the trial Court awarded Rs. 2000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 1000/- P. M. as maintenance holding that respondent does not earn more than Rs. 1200/- to 1500/- and he found that petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence to show that the income of the respondent is more than what is claimed by him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that petitioner has filed copy of the deed of partnership between the respondent and his father and that would go to show that respondent has invested sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and he has therefore certainly an income from that source besides his service. He 3 submits that the respondent definitely has therefore two sources of income. . Shri Joshi learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the trial Court is correct. Respondent does not carry on any business now since the partnership is broken and the business is closed in 2007. Proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are said to be summary proceedings. The petitioner had certainly placed before the Court documents showing the partnership between the respondent and his partner. In fact there was no difficulty for the trial Court to have relied on those documents. This certainly goes to show that respondent was carrying on mobile phone shop besides service. It can certainly be said that even a casual labourer can earn more than Rs. 2000/- to 3000/- per month and it is difficult to hold that respondent earns Rs. 1200/- to 1500/- per month. In the circumstances I find that the petitioner had certainly placed enough of evidence to hold that respondent has sufficient source of income to pay the maintenance amount as well as litigation expenses. Considering the income of the respondent and the fact that he carries on business it must be held that the income of the respondent must not be less than Rs. 7000/- to 8000/- per month. In the circumstances, I find that the order passed by the trial Court needs to be corrected and the same is 4 set aside. In view of this, Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent shall pay to the petitioner from the date of application a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards maintenance and Rs. 7000/- towards litigation expenses. All the arrears be deposited in the Court within a period of three months. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE svk 5 6 7