1 (20) WP 374/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2011 Omprakash Dugesh Mishra .. Petitioner Vs. Reena Omprakash Mishra .. Respondent Mr. G. R. Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr. A. N. Shaikh for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 8th February, 2011. P.C. 1. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted the Respondent wife in a sum of Rs.2500/-. It may be stated at once that is most minimum amount that would be granted to a wife in the year 2010. 2. The Petitioner claims to be married to her. He has filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He claims to take back his wife in his house. He further claims that he earns only Rs. 5000/- as a watchman. On such a claim the Petitioner would be incapable of even maintaining himself, but he has desired and hoped to have his wife back. The Petitioner, therefore, must be able to and capable of supporting the wife. The basic requirement is his financial earning. 3. The Respondent wife claims that the Petitioner is a 2 (20) WP 374/11 Computer Mechanic and also does estate agent’s work. She claims that he earns Rs.15,000/- as computer mechanic and more than Rs.35,000/- as an estate agent. She, therefore, claims that the Petitioner earns Rs.50,000/- p.m. 4. The Respondent in his reply to the application of the Petitioner stated that he works with his brother-in-law and earns Rs.5,000/- p.m. instead. Advocate on his behalf was asked what his brother- in-law did. The Advocates stated that his brother- in-law is in the business of Computer spare-parts. Consequently the claim of the Respondent wife that the Petitioner works as a Computer mechanic falls in place. The Advocate for Respondent husband stated that he works as a helper to deliver parcels. That fact is not in the affidavit of the Respondent filed in the Family Court. The affidavit is silent as to the kind of work that the Respondent is capable of doing. It is only stated that the Respondent is “working” with his brother-in-law. 5. Under this circumstances, the earning of the Petitioner husband as a compute mechanic must be accepted. 6. The wife further claims that he works as an estate agent. That is refuted. 7. The husband claims that the wife is working as “fashion designing and tailoring” as she has completed that course. He claims that she is earning Rs.6000/- p.m. He claims that he has “come 3 (20) WP 374/11 to know” of this fact. There is nothing to show that the wife is earning any amount. 8. Even taking only the earning of the husband as a computer mechanic, the amount of maintenance granted is most moderate and reasonable. The Writ Petition is completely misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)