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.3752 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3752 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3752 OF 2008 Hemant R.Rajurkar (Ugale) ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Vandana H.Rajurkar (Ugale) ...Respondent. Mr.J.S.Kini i/by Mr.Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Kini, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the judge of the Family Court, Mumbai allowed the Respondent’s application for interim maintenance and directed the Petitioner, to pay Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the Respondent towards the interim maintenance from the date of application. 3. There is no dispute that the Petitioner’s net income by way of salary is Rs.14,951/- and the learned Judge, Family Court taking into consideration this ( 2 ) income of the Petitioner, awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the Respondent wife. 4. Mr.Kini, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent is B.H.M.S.doctor and she is practicing at Kalyan and thereby earns a good income. He further invited my attention towards para (i) of her pleadings in interim maintenance application. The Respondent’s pleading in this para shows that she is practicing at Kalyan and hardly earns an amount of Rs.80 to 100 per day. The Respondent also averred in this para that the premises where she runs the dispensary is taken on leave and license by making deposit of Rs.25,000/- and she has to pay a rent to the tune of Rs.3,200/- per month in addition to electricity bill which comes to the tune of Rs.300/- p.m. It was also stated in this paragraph that she spent an amount of Rs.1000/- towards purchase of medicines for the dispensary and she also incurred approximately Rs.500/- towards miscellaneous expenses. 5. It is important to note that, the Respondent has given the details in her application for interim maintenance. Though the petitioner claims that Respondent’s income is more than 20,000/- p.m., there ( 3 ) is no evidence to substantiate this allegations. In my considered view, the Judge of the Family Court correctly considered the Petitioner’s income, the income of the Respondent and thereafter fixed the amount of maintenance. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the approach adopted by the Family Court and therefore, no reason to interfere in the exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, accordingly dismissed. 6. It is expressly made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie and made for the purpose of disposal of this petition only. The Family Court however, directed to dispose of the main proceeding independently and on its own merits. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)