1 WP2156.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2156 OF 2011 Kamlesh @ Raju Jamnadas Swali. ... Petitioner. V/s. Rupa Kamlesh Swali. ... Respondent. Mr. Hitendra Venegavkar for the Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Pai with Mrs. Pai for the Respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 21st MARCH 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsels on both sides. The Respondent herein has filed Petition for divorce in the Family Court at Bombay. She filed application for maintenance pending the said Petition for herself and the daughter born out of the wed lock between the Petitioner and the Respondent by filing Interim Application No. 274 of 2009. The learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 11th October 2010 below the said application at Exhibit 7 passed an order thereby directing the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for her maintenance and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the maintenance of daughter Mili. This amount was to be paid from 8th June 2009. This order dated 11th October 2010 is challenged before this Court by this Writ Petition. 2 WP2156.11.sxw 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The learned Judge of the Family Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is working in a shop which belongs to joint Hindu family and that is how the Petitioner is receiving his remuneration for working in the said shop. It is common ground that the Petitioner is residing in the house belonging to the joint family. 3. In the affidavit in reply the Petitioner has not stated precisely the amount of monies which he gets from working in the shop owned by the joint family. Across the bar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he has been thrown out from the joint family business and he earns nothing. It is difficult to accept this stand. In any case, there is no reference to this stand before the learned Judge of the Family Court. 4. After having perused the entire order and the stand of the Petitioner, it is difficult to interfere in the order dated 11th October 2009. The Petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) The Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)