1 revn13-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 2011 Sandip Arvind Joshi .. Applicant v/s. Vaishali Sandip Joshi & Another ..Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Applicant Mr. Suresh Shirke for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 6th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The respondent herein has filed application for maintenance in the Family Court at Bandra being Petition No.E-155 of 2010 against the applicant. The respondent had filed an application for interim 2 revn13-11.sxw maintenance by application dated 11.5.2010 being Application at Exhibit 8. That application was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by Order dated 30.11.2010. The learned Judge of the Family Court passed an order thereby directing the applicant to pay the respondent the sum of Rs.4000/- per month w.e.f. the date of the application i.e. 11.5.2007 till the disposal of the main petition. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Warunjikar appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of Family Court has fixed the quantum of maintenance on higher side. According to him, the learned Judge of the Family Court should have considered the stand of the applicant that the applicant was assisting his father in his business. According to the applicant his father is selling snacks (Dabeli) near Kandivli Railway Station and that the applicant gets a sum of Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/- per month and there is no other income accrued to the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that the amount of maintenance should be reduced and the order should be accordingly modified. In so far as this aspect is concerned, the bare word of the applicant that he gets Rs.3000/- to 3500/- from his father just cannot be accepted. The 3 revn13-11.sxw applicant has not given details of the business run by his father and the applicant has not been able to make out a case on the basis of the documentary evidence that he is receiving a sum of Rs.3000/- to 3500/- . It was even possible for the applicant to place before the Court his bank pass book and other documents to show that he comes from a lower strata of the society and that the quantum of maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month is on higher side. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of interim maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. After having gone through the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge of the Family Court has taken practical view of the matter and has considered the material before him and has rightly accepted the case of the respondent and has rightly accepted income potential of the petitioner and has fixed reasonable amount of maintenance. No interference is required in the impugned order on the question of quantum. Needless to mention that at the stage of final hearing of main application it will be open for petitioner to place all the evidence and seek orders. 4 revn13-11.sxw 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out to the Court the mistake in the impugned order, namely he pointed out that the application for maintenance was filed on 11.5.2010 and therefore if at all the Order could be passed it could have been w.e.f. 11.5.2010 and not from 11.5.2007. Learned Counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that appropriate view be taken and the said order be rectified, if the court is not inclined to reduce the quantum of maintenance. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the date 11.5.2007 is obviously a typographical mistake and that after passing of the order dated 30.11.2010 he had moved the learned Judge of the Family Court and got the date corrected to 11.5.2010. If this is the stand taken by the Respondent before this Court there is no difficulty in modifying the Order dated 30.11.2010 so that the said order of maintenance would operate w.e.f. 11.5.2010 and not w.e.f. 11.5.2007. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of this petition at the stage of final hearing. 5 revn13-11.sxw ORDER i) No interference is required in the impugned Order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.6, Mumbai,below Exhibit 8 in petition No.E-155 of 2010 as regards quantum, namely Rs.4000/- per month. ii) The Order is modified and it is hereby ordered that the said amount of maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month by way of interim maintenance will be payable w.e.f. 11.5.2010 till the disposal of the main petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to dispose of the main application for maintenance on or before 30.9.2011. iii) This order is being passed as counsels on both sides have assured this court to co-operate with the learned Judge, Family Court No.6 at Bandra, Mumbai. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]