1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6440 OF 2011 Sunil Bhaskar Patait .... Petitioner Vs. Sau. Swati Sunil Patait .... Respondent Mr. Rameshwar Gite, Advocate for petitioner. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 13th December, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition challenges the interim order dtd. 3rd May 2011 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon on the application for maintenance filed by the respondent-wife in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The impugned order awards interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent and probable expenses of the proceeding at Rs.5,000/-. The order is challenged on the 2 ground that there was no material whatsoever before the trial court for arriving at the quantum of maintenance of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The respondent has alleged in her application that the petitioner owns bagayati land of 8 acres and does business of Poultry and Dairy. In addition, he runs two shops, one of mobile phones and another of readymade garments. The brothers of the petitioner run a footwear shop. She has alleged that businesses are joint businesses and the yearly income from the businesses is of Rs.11 lacs. The father of the petitioner is working in police department. With these averments, she sought interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month and expenses of the petition at Rs. 20,000/-. In his reply, the petitioner baldly denied the contentions of the respondent and claimed that he is a daily wage worker, working in agricultural fields whenever and wherever the work is available to him. 3. Considering the bald denial by the petitioner in his affidavit in reply and the equally bald claim made as regards he being daily wage worker and the status of the petitioner 3 reflected from his marriage invitation card, it would be difficult to believe, on a prima facie view, that the petitioner is a daily wage worker, earning Rs.80/- to 90/- per day. The impugned order shows that while awarding interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-, the trial Court was conscious of the fact that the respondent had not produced any material before the Court to establish the yearly earnings of the petitioner as of Rs.11 lacs. It, therefore, awarded a fairly reasonable amount of Rs.2,000/- per month. The impugned order is seen to be fair and reasonable and hence does not require any interference. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)