- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7469 OF 2007 Kailas Rameshwar Jaju. ...Petitioner VS. 1.Smt.Kapila Kailas Jaju & anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.K.Shinde with Sagar Kusar, for Petitioner. Mr.V.V.Jaju & R.R.Sonawane i/b. M.B.Shirsat, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 25th January,2008. DATED: 25th January,2008. DATED: 25th January,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Malegaon, granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent no.1-wife and granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the daughter by name Tulip. The maintenance to both wife and daughter have been granted from the date of application i.e. 14.8.2006. - 2 - So far as the maintenance granted to the wife is concerned, it is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is only earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month and therefore, it is unreasonable to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to wife. It is also contended that the wife is working as LIC agent and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- to wife. 3. In my opinion, the petitioner’s challenge to the order for the above two reasons have no foundation. The petitioner is Doctor by profession, and therefore, it is not possible to believe that he is earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month. In any case, the petitioner is not disputing the relationship between the parties. The petitioner admittedly has not produced any document either to show that wife is working as LIC agent or that she is having any income from her alleged agency of LIC. It is, thus, clear that wife has no source of income. If the wife has no source of income, the petitioner cannot deny his liability to maintain his wife. The petitioner is Doctor by profession, and therefore, considering the present economic condition and the status of the petitioner, granting maintenance at the - 3 - rate of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent no.1-wife can by no stretch of imagination is said to be unreasonable. Therefore, I do not find any fault with the order of the Family Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife from the date of application i.e. 14.8.2006. 4. So far as the order granting maintenance to the daughter from 14.8.2006 is concerned, in my opinion, that order needs to be modified because the learned Judge himself has observed in paragraph 8 of the order that the daughter was born on 12.12.2006. Therefore, there could not have been order made for payment of maintenance to the daughter from 14.8.2006. The order granting maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month is therefore, required to be modified by directing that the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month shall be paid for the daughter Tulip from 12.12.2006 onwards. I find that the daughter was born while the wife was away from the husband, it means that the wife had to incur expenditure also for her delivery but that aspect of the matter appears not to have been considered by the Family Court. Therefore, in case the wife applies with necessary documents for payment of expenditure which she has incurred for - 4 - delivery and treatment of the child, the Family Court shall consider that application and make an order in that regard also. 5. The petition therefore, succeeds in part. The order of the family court granting maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from 14.8.2006 is modified by directing that the interim maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month shall be payable from 12.12.2006. The order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- to the wife is maintained. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ---