IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6332 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6332 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6332 OF 2008. Mr Vijay Fernandez ..Petitioner. V/s. Mrs Probodhini Vijay Fernandez ..Respondent. Mr Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R. N. Sanghani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 09.09.2008. DATED: 09.09.2008. DATED: 09.09.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the Family Court No.4, Pune below Exhs. 17,19, and 22 in M. P. No.PA/100 of 2008. 3. Having seen the material available on record and the view taken, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that this order has already been executed and acted upon through the process of the Court. 5. During the course of hearing, it was also pointed out that the petitioner has been living in another flat purchased by him. The petitioner has denied to be in possession of another flat. He admits to have booked one new flat valued at Rs. 14,82,000/- out of which he admits to have paid Rs. 14,08,860/- to the builder. He submits that due to financial constrains he could not pay balance amount of Rs. 3,20,236/- to the builder, as such he could not get possession of the subject flat. That is how, he submits that he does not have any other accommodation to stay. The submission made by the petitioner does not inspire judicial confidence for the reasons stated hereinbelow. 6. The petitioner submits that he is getting salary of Rs.32,000/- per month only. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, disclosed that the Petitioner is paying instalment of Rs 15,000/- per month on account of loan borrowed from the bank for purchase of the flat and Rs. 10,000/- per month for purchase of a motor car. Out of Rs. 32,000/- the petitioner is paying instalments worth Rs. 25,000/- per month. If the petitioner is right in submitting that his income is Rs. 32,000/- per month, then, the petitioner must also be paying income-tax. If the incidence of income-tax and instalments are taken into account, the petitioner would be left with only Rs 5000/- per month in hand with which the Petitioner cannot survive, especially, a person who is maintaining the car. The Petitioner having borrowed loan from the bank for purchase of flat must have mortgaged the same with the bank by way of security. He cannot afford to commit default in payment of balance amount to the builder. He cannot afford to risk his payment of Rs. 14,08,860/- for small payment of balance amount of Rs. 3,20,236/- He, thus, can conveniently arrange to have accommodation for him. 7. The petition is without substance. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. Matrimonial dispute be treated as expedited one. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)