1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7114 OF 2008 Manoj Arvind Raut Petitioner versus Sau.Sarika Manoj Raut Respondent Surel S. Shah for petitioner. Balasaheb Deshmukh for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The Farad Sheet shows that efforts were made earlier to put an end to the matter by referring the matter to the mediation. However, the mediation has failed. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent- wife filed a petition for divorce. The petitioner filed his written statement to the said petition. There is a counter claim made by the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Trial Judge directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife @ Rs.1,500/- and to the son @ Rs.1,000/- from the date of institution of the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged various grounds in support of this petition. He pointed out that there is no evidence regarding actual income of the petitioner. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge. He also invited my attention to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. Along with the additional 2 affidavit, the petitioner has placed on record certain documents brought on record of the Trial Court subsequently. According to the petitioner, the said documents prove that the respondent was living adulterous life in the company of one Narayan Maqwana. The documents which are tendered along with the affidavit allegedly show that the respondent-wife has been tested HIV+. There is further affidavit filed by the respondent-wife denying the allegations made in the additional affidavit of the petitioner. She has placed on record the medical certified issued by another laboratory which according to her proves that she has not been tested HIV+. Thus, there is a serious dispute between the parties on this aspect and conflicting medical reports have been placed on record and, therefore, at this stage, when main mater is pending, this aspect cannot be considered. The petition for divorce filed by the respondent has been withdrawn and what is to be decided is the counter claim filed by petitioner. 3. The case made out by the respondent-wife was that the petitioner is a qualified Engineer and is earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. by way of salary. The petitioner came out with a case that he has no income and in fact in the business of construction he has suffered huge losses and he is liable to repay a sum of Rs.7.80 lakhs to a bank. The learned Judge observed that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the petitioner for establishing his liability towards bank. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an Engineer, the total maintenance has been fixed @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. In a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to interfere with the said order. However, the contentions raised by the petitioner are kept open which can be considered at the time of trial. Considering the fact that the parties are unable to sort out the matter, it will be in the interests of justice that a direction be given to the Trial Court to hear the said petition expeditiously. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected; 3 (b) Hearing of the petition is expedited; (c) The Trial Court will conclude the trial on or before January 2010. (A.S.OKA, J.)