1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4998 OF 2009 Ravindra s/o Sakharam Katke, Age 41 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Nilanga, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. ... PETITIONER VERSUS Dr. Sunanda w/o Ravindra Katke, Age 46 years, Occ. Postmortem Officer, At Postmortem Officer, Postmortem Department, J.J. Group of Hospital, Mohd. Ali Road, Mumbai, R/o C/o Dr. Arjun Shivappa Poul, S.S.2-A, Room No.8 and 9, Sector 6, Kopar Khairane, New Mumbai (Copy to be served through the Dean, Sir J.J. Group of Hospital, Mohd. Ali Road, Mumbai) ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard extensively. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondent waives service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. In H.M.P. No.9/2008, styled as Ravindra Sakharam Katke Vs. Sow. Sunanda Ravindra Katke, an application below 2 Exh. 19 was moved by wife Sunanda for interim alimony at Rs. 10,000/- per month and also expenses to meet the litigation initiated by husband Ravindra. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, by order dated 15.7.2009, allowed such application and directed the husband Ravindra to pay interim alimony of Rs.10,000/- per month. Said order is questioned in the Writ Petition. 3. The marital status of Ravindra with Sunanda on 20.6.1991 is not in controversy. The couple is blessed with a male and female child, presently under nurture of the wife, who is a Medical Officer at Mumbai. 4. The principle question that would be required to be looked into is, in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, what could be the scope of the application. Section 24 conceive, if it appears to Court that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her to meet maintenance and necessary expenses of proceedings, the Court may order grant such expenses of the proceedings and also monthly alimony having regard to the petitioner's own income and income of the respondent, as the Court deems it to be reasonable. 5. The wife admittedly is drawing a salary of Rs. 35,471/-, this has been so indicated even in the reply filed opposing grant of interim alimony. 3 6. The wife has alleged, the status in which she is required to live, including educational environment of her children, warrant for a maintenance from the husband. 7. There cannot be a question about the husband's responsibility to maintain his children. However, in terms of section 24 coupled with the history of litigation between the parties, the merits need to be assessed. In earlier proceedings, the wife urged for grant of maintenance of Rs.2000/-. By order dated 8.2.1999 in Writ Petition No.693/1999, the urge of the wife was rejected, holding that the wife was a Medical Officer with good yield of income. It is informed, said order has reached finality as it is not disturbed by Apex Court. 8. The wife in her application below Exh. 19 before the learned Judge, has pressed that the husband has irrigated agricultural fields, she did not deem it fit to specify the details or the revenue assessment or the approximate annual yield from such agricultural field. The learned counsel representing Ravindra- husband informed that, the joint family of the husband held only 10 acres of the property which is indeed insufficient to maintain the family of the husband. The husband and entire family is now virtually ruined to prosecute the litigation initiated by the wife. 9. The learned Judge, in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the order, has dealt with the factual details of status of the parties. 4 He has unfortunately not indicated as to what made him to award Rs.10,000/-, payable by the husband Ravindra to the wife as interim alimony. Though at the stage of claim of interim alimony no evidence is required to be adduced, however, the minimum expectation is, there should be some coherence in awarding maintenance in tune to the income of the either of the spouse. The learned counsel representing the wife has dealt with the provisions of Section 4 and 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also to impress the responsibility of the husband to maintain the children. There cannot be a quarrel on the legal proposition as enunciated in terms of either Section 4 or Section 8 of the said Act. 10. The learned counsel took recourse to the judgment in the matter of Sangeeta Piyush Raj, Plaintiff Vs. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj, Defendant (AIR 1998 Bombay 151), to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Padma Sharma, Appellant Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma. Respondent (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1398), to the judgment in the matter of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal, Appellant Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, Respondents (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3397). The question which has been dealt with by the Apex Court or the Division Bench of this Court in above referred reported cases basically deals with obligation of the person to maintain his unmarried daughter or children. As stated above, 5 that aspect is not in controversy, husband's responsibility to maintain his children. 11. The crucial aspect, which warrants consideration, is the status of the wife, has been indicated in reply and pointed today also speaks that the wife has good yield of salary of Rs. 35,471/-, she resides in Government quarter being Medical Officer, assigned with her duties. In this scenario of the matter, the income as is warranted in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the wife being sufficient for her to maintain during pendency of the proceedings of divorce sought by the husbanda award of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- by learned Judge is uncalled for. It is accordingly set aside. So far as the award of expenses of Rs.9000/- are concerned, it does not require any interference. Writ Petition allowed to the extent as above. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. 12. Needless to mention, liberty and rights of the children by such order is not taken with away. The change of circumstances, if projected by wife, will have recourse by her to claim maintenance. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE