1 wp-7591-7833 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Writ Petition No.7591 of 2010 Mr.Rohan Kesarinath Shridhankar .. .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs.Harsha Rohan Shridhankar .. .. Respondent WITH Writ Petition No.7833 of 2010 Harsha Rohan Shridhankar .. .. .. Petitioner v/s. Rohan Kesarinath Shridhankar .. .. Respondent Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/by Sandhya Mailgir for Petitioner. Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni for Respondent. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6th December, 2010 P.C. : 1.Both the Petitions challenge the impugned order granting interim maintenance passed by the Principal Judge of the Family court at Bandra, Mumbai on 19 th July 2010. 2.The husband is an Engineer. The wife was B-Tech. Both 2 wp-7591-7833 the parties earned by way of salary before their marriage. They married on 23 rd March 2008. The marriage lasted only upto 9 th June 2008. The wife was earning Rs.12,000/- before and after her marriage as claimed by the husband. She claims to have resigned thereafter and made an application for interim maintenance for being maintained by the husband on the ground that she could not maintain herself. The bona fides of her application and the truth of her inability to maintain herself can be considered based upon her cross-examination at her trial. At present, her income of Rs.12,000/-, as contended by the husband himself, may be taken into account to determine the amount of maintenance. Per :(Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dated 24.3.2000, Govind Singh vs. Smt.Vidya, AIR 1999 Rajasthan 304) relied upon by the Advocate of the Petitioner. 3.The husband has produced his income tax returns and his pay slips for the last one year, as called upon. The gross income of the husband exceeds Rs.1 Lakh. It is essentially between Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.1,96,000/- in the last few months. It appears to have exceeded the income of the last year. However, the learned Judge has considered his earlier income before his latest rise or promotion. This would be in the range of Rs. 3 wp-7591-7833 1,05,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. After certain deductions his approximate income is in the range of Rs.65,000/- to Rs.93,000/- during the earlier period. After the latest rise the net income also exceeds Rs.1,15,000/-. Even considering the income of Rs.12,000/- of the wife, the husband is seen to earn far more. A reasonable and appropriate amount has to be granted to the wife for her maintenance from the husband s income. 4.The parents of the husband are not dependent on the husband and are themselves earning which fact is not denied in his pleadings. Even granting the husband s all deductions from his salary, his income far exceeds the income of the wife. 5.The learned Judge has granted interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- which is prudent and proper. It is contended by the Petitioner s Advocate that the order is required to be, but is not reasoned. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Pipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare, 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 280 and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 in that behalf. The reasoned order is not necessarily a long order. Reasoning is reflected from considering the facts and arriving at a decision. The only aspect to be considered in this case 4 wp-7591-7833 was the salary of the husband and his parents and, at best, the previous salary of the wife. Only an arithmetical calculation was required. The conclusion could, therefore, be arrived at upon stating the facts simpliciter. No further analysis or interpretation was required to be made. A reasonable amount was, therefore, arrived at. The order, therefore, cannot be faulted as arbitrary or unthought of. It reflects why the amount is so determined. That would suffice. 6.The wife has applied for enhancement of the maintenance. The enhancement would be considered at the time of trial based upon all the facts. The husband has applied for reduction/setting aside the amount of maintenance. It is argued on his behalf that if the wife can maintain herself reasonably, the husband need not maintain her at all and that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- is reasonable for her maintenance. That argument would be inappropriate since the husband himself, in this case, would require far more than this amount to maintain himself. 7.In these circumstances, the impugned order does not require any interference. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 5 wp-7591-7833