:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.704 OF 2009 NO.704 OF 2009 NO.704 OF 2009 Ramchandra Kisan Tuplondhe ..Petitioner Vs. Rama @ Sunita Ramchandra Tulplandhe ..Respondent Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA,J. :- V.C.DAGA,J. :- V.C.DAGA,J. DATE DATE DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 6TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 6TH FEBRUARY,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Perused petition. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10th October, 2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Mumbai in Interim Application No.261 of 2007 in M.J.Petition No.13 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the interim maintenance is granted in favour Respondent wife @ Rs.5000/- p.m. together with an amount of Rs.10000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. Mr.Gole, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired person getting pension in the sum of Rs.7000/- p.m. Thus, considering the monthly income of petitioner, grant of interim maintenance @ Rs.5000/- p.m. is :2: arbitrary and perverse, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr.Gole, during the course of hearing took me through the documents available on record including the documents evidencing the purchase of flat and the bank account. 5. Having heard Mr.Gole and having seen the pleading and documents on record, the petitioner is a retired Officer who has taken voluntary retirement from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The bank accounts produced on record shows that petitioner is maintaining bank accounts with State Bank of India, Dahisar (East) Branch, Mumbai bearing A/c. No.10155330380. Another account in the Corporation Bank bearing A/c.No.SB/01/002448 INR and third account with State Bank of India bearing A/c.No.3000904839-4. The withdrawal figures from these various accounts constitute more than Rs.10/- lac. The petitioner appears to be financially sound person and being a retired Officer from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, he can very well earn, even after his retirement, being an experienced officer of the Customs Department and having held the post of Assistant Commissioner. It is not common that after retirement, the officers of the Central Excise Department, Customs Department and/or Income Tax Department, practice as Adviser to various commercial :3: establishments. In this case, even though there is no evidence in this respect, it cannot be said that petitioner is not earning after his retirement since he is able bodied person. It is not the case that he is not keeping good health. He has no liability. His son appears to be a major son. He is not required to pay rent, as he is occupying his own house. 6. The petitioner having retired from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs is a person from upper middle class. If he is a person from upper middle class, he is expected to maintain his standard of living of that upper middle class. If that be so, the wife is also entitled to enjoy the same status. In the present days of soaring prices, one cannot survive unless he or she gets Rs.4000/- to 5000/- p.m. It is obligatory on the part of petitioner to provide maintenance to his wife. It is for the petitioner-husband to find out his ways to meet his obligation towards his wife. 7. The judicial note of the fact can also be taken that if somebody works as Adviser or in any capacity with another private establishment after his retirement, an attempt is to conceal his real income. The persons like petitioner, who is retired as Assistant Commissioner of Customs is not expected to sit idle. He is bound to utilise his experience and knowledge, so as to earn his livelihood. Thus, taking :4: into account over all scenario and status of the present petitioner, it is difficult to reach to conclusion that the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Bandra at Rs.5000/- p.m. is arbitrary or excessive and that the impugned order needs interference. 8. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The petitioner is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)