1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1361/2010 (Vinod J. Hedau vrs. Sau. Priti V. Hedau.) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri J.C.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner Shri S.D.Khate, counsel for the respondent. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 14th MARCH, 2011. This writ petition challenges the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by Exh. 5 by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Nagpur, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 19.11.2008 till the disposal of the petition. 2] Notice in this matter was issued on 30th March, 2010. By the same order, the petitioner Husband was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- with the Registry of this Court by 2 9.4.2010 and subject to this deposit, the notice for final disposal of the petition was made returnable on 27.4.2010. 3] By order dated 20th July, 2010, this court had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/- more by 31st August, 2010. The same has been deposited by the petitioner. 4] On 7th March, 2011, the matter was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A point was raised that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966, the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the members of the Schedule Tribe. It was submitted that the petitioner belongs to Halba Koshti, the caste which falls in the Schedule Tribe category and this objection was taken, but has not been considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to satisfy this Court on this point by showing from the list of Schedule Tribe Order an entry of Halba Koshti and producing certificate to that effect. 3 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced on record the School Leaving Certificate and the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate on 22.2.1991, showing that the petitioner belongs to Halba Schedule Tribe category. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement made in the application before the trial Court for dismissal of the petition that the petitioner belongs to Halba Koshti community, which is the Schedule Tribe, is not correct, but it should be treated as Halba. 7] Undisputedly Halba Koshti is not included in the Schedule Tribe Order. The document produced on record cannot be accepted as a proof even prima facie to hold that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe Category. It cannot, therefore, be said prima facie that the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not applicable. Except this, there is no 4 other point raised in the petition. 8] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month is not based upon any criteria. It is not disputed that the petitioner is earning Rs.16000/- per month . In view of this, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.3500/- per month is exorbitant. 9] In view of above, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10] The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court along with the interest accrued thereon. JUDGE Rvjalit