bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 800 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 800 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 800 OF 2008 Saifabdul Hamid Tumbi ... Petitioner v/s Shabab d/o Abu Bakar Chandiwala ... Respondent Mrs.Uma G. Wagle for the petitioner. Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH JUNE, 2008 4TH JUNE, 2008 4TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 11th December, 2007 passed on the interim application for maintenance filed by the respondent for herself and her son. According to the petitioner, the learned Judge of the Family Court while deciding the interim application, directed payment of an exhorbitant amount towards the interim maintenance for both, the respondent and the child. Both, the respondent and the child have been awarded Rs.10,000/- each per month by the learned Judge. However, while doing so, the learned Judge has observed that the respondent herein, had not proved the exact income of the petitioner-husband and, therefore, the husband would be liable to pay 2 Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family court has observed that the parties belong to the affluent strata of the society and, therefore, the petitioner husband should pay this amount. 2. An affidavit has been filed in this Court indicating the earnings of the petitioner as well as his financial status. However, admittedly, these documents were not on record before the Family Court when the impugned order was passed. In my view, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to remit the matter for a fresh hearing before the Family Court. 3. I had suggested to the learned advocates for the parties that it would be in the interest of both parties that an interim order for maintenance for both the respondent and the child is passed so that the main application for maintenance itself can be heard without further delay. Although the petitioner’s advocate was agreeable to this suggestion, on instructions from the respondent who is present in Court, her advocate has insisted that the interim application be remanded for hearing to the Family Court and that the main application for maintenance could be heard at a later date. 3 4. The order impugned in this petition dated 11th December, 2007 is quashed and set aside. 5. An amount of Rs.75,000/- has already been paid to the respondent and the child in compliance with the impugned order. That amount will be retained by the respondent and the child during the pendency of the interim application. This amount shall be adjusted towards any amount which may be awarded by the Family Court by way of interim maintenance. It is made clear that the petitioner need not make any payment under the order dated 11th December, 2007 during the pendency of the interim maintenance application. 6. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.