1 (38) WP 150/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 150 OF 2011 Manoj Mahadev Vishwakarma .. Petitioner Vs. Sushma Manoj Vishwakarma .. Respondent Mr. S. R. Pandey i/b Mr. Janardan Jha for the Petitioner. Ms. Kalpana Konhere for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 27th January, 2011 Oral Order 1. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted to his child. The amount of maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court No.6, Mumbai is Rs.7000/- p.m. The Petitioner husband was stated to be a Non Destructive Technician earning Rs.1.5 lacs p.m. 2. The Petitioner has not denied the said designation. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioner in the Family Court without denying his employment, he has stated that he “is presently umemployed and unable to maintain her at her parental house”. He has not denied his capacity to maintain the child. 3. He has not shown since which date he has been unemployed. He has not shown why he came to be unemployed. Consequently his employment, which has not 2 (38) WP 150/11 been denied, must be considered. 4. It is settled law that when a wife makes a specific case of a certain employment and specific income of the husband and the husband does not show his income whilst denying the income stated by the wife, the income stated by the wife is required to be accepted. In this case the husband has neither denied his designation, nor the income. All he has stated is that he is now unemployed. Since he has not shown the factum or the time of his unemployment that case has to be rejected. 5. Upon a specific case of the wife that the husband earns Rs.1.5 lacs, the order of the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- is the most conservative and the minimum amount that could have been ordered. 6. The husband has resisted the Petition for divorce of the wife. He asserted that the wife deserted him and stated in his affidavit-in-reply to the interim application that he was ready to maintain her and the child. It is not understood if the husband is unemployed, how he would maintain the wife and the child and how would be in a position to claim that she should return to her matrimonial home. 7. The case of a husband that he is prepared to maintain his wife and child at his home if they return to the matrimonial home can never be countenanced when he fails or refuses or evades to pay any maintenance to his wife and child on the ground that his employment has ceased or his business has been closed. In fact a husband who does not earn and takes pride in making out 3 (38) WP 150/11 such a case to Court is undeserving of being granted the company of his wife or the custody of his child. It is for him to get himself gainfully employed before he can desire to have his wife or child in his house. Consequently a conditional offer to maintain a wife or child if they return to the matrimonial home is bereft of bonafides. These are 2 Separate and distinct aspects which must be considered on their own merits separately and independently. However, the offer of maintaining a wife and child is the home of the husband itself militates against the husband’s resistance to be able to maintain them in their respective positions. Such offer on the husband’s own showing, reflects the capability of the husband to maintain them, but a refusal and neglect to do so. 8. The Petitioner contends before this Court that he is prepared to maintain the child but applies for lessor maintenance amount. It is a shame for the father who is stated to be earning Rs.1.5 lacs p.m. not to pay Rs.7,000/- to his child. 9. The Petition completely lacks bonafides and is seem to be false and is accordingly dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)