1 WP1513.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2011 Mrs. Vaishali Vasant Salvi. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Vasant Gopalrao Salvi. ... Respondent. Mr. V.V. Pai i/b. Ms. Shubhangi Vaidya for the Petitioner. Mr. Vasant Gopal Salvi, Respondent in person present. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th MARCH 2011. P.C. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By Consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The Respondent has filed Petition for divorce in the Family Court at Bombay being Petition No.A-45 of 2008. In the said Petition, the Petitioner herein has filed an application for maintenance and the learned Judge of the Family Court has, by order dated 8th December 2010 decided the said application and the Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of the application i.e. 20th March 2009. The Respondent herein has filed an affidavit in reply. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2 WP1513.11.sxw 3. The respondent herein has stated before the Court that though he is a practicing Advocate and is holding Sanad from 2006 and because he cannot address the Court in English, he is unable to secure good work. He has stated before the Court that he earns Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month by way of his legal profession. He also stated that he holds a rickshaw permit and every month he gets a sum of Rs.500/- from the rickshaw driver. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent showed willingness to pay a sum of Rs.500/- in addition to Rs.1,500/- as per the order passed by the Court on 8th December 2010. 5. After having considered the entire matter, I am inclined to observe that the increase suggested by the Respondent to the tune of Rs.500/- is reasonable considering the facts placed before the Court by both the sides. It is required to be noted that the Respondent has placed before the Court shops and establishment licence standing in the name of the Petitioner in regard to business premises where as per the shops and establishment licence, the Petitioner is carrying on hair cutting saloon. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner has suppressed the fact that she is carrying on hair cutting saloon. Learned Counsel Mr. Pai, upon instructions states that the said saloon is closed since 2006. The fact that the Petitioner was in possession of premises which are covered by the hair cutting saloon and the fact that at one point of time 3 WP1513.11.sxw the Petitioner was carrying on hair cutting saloon is not at all mentioned by the Petitioner in the application for maintenance. Be that as if may now that the Respondent has shown willingness to pay extra amount of Rs.500/- as of today, the interest of the Petitioner will protected by getting a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,500/-. 6. In my view, the Petition can be disposed of by granting maintenance to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- with effect from January 2011. 7. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of by passing following order :- (i) The Petition is partly allowed. The grant of maintenance to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from 20th March 2009 till 31st December 2010 is confirmed. (ii) It is hereby ordered that the Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from January 2011. The Petitioner is free to take steps to recover the arrears as of today. (iii) The Respondent is directed to deposit the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month and the arrears if any, in the Family Court at Bombay as 4 WP1513.11.sxw and when the said maintenance is payable. The Family Court at Bombay shall receive the said amount. The Petitioner is granted liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing guarantee or security. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)