1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10340 OF 2009 Mr. Parsuram maruti Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs Mrs. Geeta Parsuram Jadhav. .. Respondent -- Shri G.M. Savagare for the Petitioner. Ms Kokila Kalra for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C: . The petitioner-husband has challenged an interim order passed by the Family Court by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife by way of interim maintenance and a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the minor child by way of interim maintenance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no longer in the employment of “Jay Investment Company” and he is earning livelihood as a shoemaker and, therefore, the amount directed to be paid is on a higher side. 2. I have considered the submissions. In Paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court has observed thus:- 2 “4. It is to be noted that the petitioner-husband is living at Jogeshwari, Mumbai. He is cobbler i.e. Skilled worker. The income of ordinary worker in a City like Mumbai should be Rs.150/- to 200/- per day. The income of skilled worker should be one and half time more than the ordinary worker. Therefore, income of the petitioner-husband should be presumed between Rs.225/- to Rs.300/- per day, i.e. Rs.6750/- to Rs.9000/- per month.” 3. What is granted is interim maintenance in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The reasoning adopted by the Family Court cannot be faulted with. The amount is reasonable. No interference is called for. The Writ Petition is rejected. Time of two months is granted to deposit arrears in terms of the impugned order. (A.S.OKA, J)