ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1460 OF PETITION NO.1460 OF PETITION NO.1460 OF 2009 2009 2009 Prakash Gurubux Navani ...Petitioner. (Orig.Respondent) Vs. Mrs.Neha Prakash Navani/ Nee Jyoti Makhija ...Respondent. (Orig.Petitioner) Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/by M/s.Vivek Kantawala for the Petitioner. Mr.H.S.Anand i/by Ms. Sarita Donde for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 06th March, 2009 : 06th March, 2009 : 06th March, 2009 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . This is a Writ Petition of the Petitioner-husband whereby a challenge is made to the impugned interlocutory order of grant of maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) p.m., in addition to the amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) already granted based upon the consent terms of the year 2002 when the child was 5 years old. 2. In reply, Respondent-wife has resisted the Petition and prayed for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per ( 2 ) month from Rs.4,500/- p.m. 3. Though Petitioner has raised contention with regard to the paternity of the son and validity of the marriage, which just cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceeding. Therefore, on this ground, I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The quantum of maintenance as awarded is based on material on the record. The Respondent-wife has not challenged this order. There is no maintenance order in her favour. But still the obligation of the father towards his son, if we take note of, the grant of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The Trial Court has rightly observed the requirement even for child and his education and other maintenance and when Petitioner is earning about Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) per month as reflected from the rejoinder filed in this Petition. The impugned order, therefore, deserves no interference. 5. The Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 3 ) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)