1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2010. Hemant Ramesh Madan -: VERSUS :- Smt. Nidhi Hemant Madan. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2010. Heard Shri J.M. Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioner/husband and Shri R.R. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent/wife. Shri Gandhi, leaned counsel contends that the respondent suppressed her physical condition and medical treatment and deceived petitioner into a marriage. He states that the history prevailing since 7 years prior to marriage was not disclosed to husband and after marriage petitioner/ husband has taken all care to provide medical treatment including dialysis every alternate day and there was a kidney transplant also. In the circumstances, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7 2 (Jasbir Kaur Sehgal .vrs. District Judge, Dehradun and others), particularly paragraph no.9 to urge that the conduct of parties and honesty shown by them needs to be looked into by the Family Court while awarding interim maintenance. According to him, in 2007 matter for the first time an application for interim maintenance was filed on 02.02.2009 and till then the respondent / wife deliberately kept herself away from the proceedings. He has relied upon certain other judgments to show how quantum of maintenance at Rs. 25,000/- per month is exorbitant. Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent / wife has pointed out that there was no suppression and no fraud. He further states that the respondent wife has also filed proceedings for restitution and those proceedings are pending. According to him looking to the financial status of the petitioner, the amount of maintenance has been awarded and that amount is just sufficient to take care of the daily needs of respondent / wife and here medicines. He further states that there is no challenge in Writ Petition to the said quantum. He also wishes to rely upon certain judgments to substantiate his contentions. Merely because wife filed application for grant of interim maintenance in 2009, that cannot be taken as an 3 indication of dishonesty. The question whether the petitioner was deceived into marriage or not, is a question of fact and the same cannot be decided at this stage. Various judgments cited by Shri Gandhi, learned counsel therefore are not very relevant. The Family Court has looked into the controversy and has also considered the annual income of the petitioner and need of respondent, and thereafter has arrived at a quantum. The maintenance awarded is from the date of application i.e. 25.02.2009. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter is writ jurisdiction. However, proceedings in Marriage Petition No. A- 904/2007 filed by the present petitioner are expedited. The same should be tried and disposed of along with Petition No. A-407/2007. The Family Court No.3 at Nagpur shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. The balance amount in deposit with the Registry of this Court is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent – wife. JUDGE Rgd.