:1: :1: :1: 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 PETITION NO. 520 OF 2008 Kamlesh B.Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Sunita K. Pawar ....Respondent ====== Mr.M.C.Shah with Mr.J.B. Singh, Adv. for the petitioner. Ms.Jalpa V. Trivedi, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Family court, Mumbai on the Application for interim maintenance filed by the Wife. The petitioner-husband has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- from the date of the Application till the petition is heard and disposed off. 2. The petitioner does not dispute before me that the costs of litigation at Rs.10,000/- require to be paid :2: :2: :2: and he is agreeable to pay the same. However, insofar as the monthly maintenance is concerned, his submission is that the amount is exorbitant and excessive and the Learned Judge has not abided by the settled principles. The Learned Judge has discarded the documents which have been placed on record to demonstrate the monthly income by way of salary. Further, the Learned Judge lost sight of the fact that the Petition itself was not maintainable and the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, I have perused the petition and the Annexures thereto. This is a clear case where the Trial Court observed that the Petitioner was a partner in a partnership firm and has been inducted therein from 8.12.2003. He has produced the Deed of Retirement dated 7.05.2007. The Deed of Retirement is executed during the pendency of the Matrimonial Petition. Further, he now wants to demonstrate that he is a salaried person. That Document with regard to the Establishment where the petitioner is allegedly employed, shows that he has been employed from :3: :3: :3: 1.3.2007. The Deed of Retirement is dated 7.5.2007 and therefore the Trial Judge was right in concluding that a person could not have been employed before the retirement. Assuming that be so, it appears that, prima-facie, he continues to be a partner as well. Thus, this is a case of prima-facie misleading the Court. The income derived from all the sources is not insufficient as is made out to be, before me. 4. This is a clear case of an interim maintenance being awarded on the basis of prima-facie conclusions. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order cannot be set aside either on the ground of sympathy or on the ground that the husband is unable to bear the burden of paying the monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-. Petition is summarily dismissed. It is clarified that all observations are tentative and prima-facie and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the main proceedings. sd/- *******