1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 620/2010 Sanjay Vithalrao Gaware V/s. Sunita Sanjay Gaware and 2 others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sachin Katarpawar, counsel for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Sahare, counsel for Respondents. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated: 11th July 2011 1. By means of this application, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 31/05/2010, passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 3, Nagpur in Petition No. E-327/09, Order below Exh. 5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an application questioning the very maintainability of the application claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- in aggregate. According to him, the wife could have claimed at the most Rs. 1500/- from the husband. Learned counsel strenuously argued that the learned Judge of the Family Court erred in law in not deciding the application preferred by the petitioner questioning the maintainability and passing order on the application for interim maintenance. According to the counsel, the Judge, Family Court could have very well decided petitioner’s application as also the application for interim 2 maintenance together. That having not been done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that even though no separate order has been passed on the application questioning maintainability, the learned Judge has taken care of the grievance of the petitioner-husband. The amount of maintenance that has been granted is quite reasonable inasmuch as the daughters have been given Rs. 1500/- each and the wife has been given Rs. 500/-. As per the status of the parties and their placement in the life. There is no arbitrariness in the impugned order as claimed by the counsel for petitioner. The petition has been preferred against the interim order of maintenance and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to hold thorough debate on the issue at hand. 4. In the result, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Punde