1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.551 OF 2009 Pundlik @ Raju S/o.Sitaram Suradkar, Age-28 years, R/o.Javkheda Bk. Tq.Bhokardan, Dist : Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS Sau.Nani @ Prajakta W/o.Raju Suradkar, Age-23 years, Occu-Household, Presentely R/o. C/o. Sadashiv Chhaddidar, Rangar Hatti, Paithan, Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. RESPONDENT Mr.P.G.Gunale, advocate for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Garud, advocate for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner who is respondent in H.M.P. No.158/2008 has challenged the order passed on the application for interim maintenance / alimony u/s. 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by which order of interim alimony in the sum of Rs. 1,500/- was passed by the Principal District Judge- Cum Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalna vide her order dated 2 20/11/2008 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 4. The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as – An application is filed u/s. 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights by the petitioner against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Jalna. After service of notice of the marriage petition on the respondent, the respondent appeared in the said marriage petition and filed written statement on 03/05/2008. At the same time, she filed an application u/s. 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act for the interim alimony and court expenses to contest the said marriage petition. Vide order dated 20/11/2008, as within meantime the marriage petition was transferred from the file of Civil Judge, S.D. to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Jalna, this application was partly allowed and interim alimony in the sum of Rs.1,500/- per month was granted by the Learned District Judge, Jalna. At the same time, Rs.7,000/- was granted as a court expenses. This order is impugned by way of the present writ petition. 5. Heard advocate for petitioner followed by the arguments of advocate for respondent. With the assistance of both the learned 3 advocates, I have gone through the observation of the learned trial court, of which order is under challenge. After reading the entire order, it appears that to show the income of the petitioner on record, whether any documentary evidence was tendered and the alleged income from that evidence is projected which find place in the impugned order. According to learned advocate appearing for the respondent, the income from the landed property of the petitioner was Rs.25,000/- per annum, which comes to Rs.2,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the petitioner is also running a saloon/barber shop at Aurangabad. This fact is denied by the petitioner. At the same time, he has not disclosed his source of income. Alongwith the affidavit in reply filed in this Court, the respondent herein have produced the 7/12 extracts of the land stood in the name of father of the present petitioner. Mere production of the 7/12 extract showing the holding of the landed property is not sufficient to show as to what is the income of the petitioner from that landed property. At this juncture, the income alleged by the petitioner from this landed property to be accepted. In the cause title of the marriage petition, the petitioner has shown his occupation as the agricultural labourer and not as a barber. Nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioner is running a barber shop and the income from that barber shop. In the premise, there is substance in the arguments of learned advocate for the petitioner that even though the respondent is entitled for interim alimony u/s. 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the amount of alimony to be granted on the basis of the income or source of income brought to the notice of the Court. 4 Considering this aspect, the amount of interim maintenance granted is exorbitant, hence it is to be reduced and also the amount of court expenses are also exorbitant, hence that is also to be modified. Considering the submissions across the bar the order of interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.1,500/- per month is reduced to Rs. 750/- per month and the amount of court expenses is reduced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.2,500/- 6. Rule thus made absolute in terms as indicated above by modifying the order passed by the Trial Court and stands disposed of with no order as to costs. The respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court in compliance of this order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp551-09