:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6503 OF 2004 Mr. Hansraj Chopra .. Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Anupama Hansraj Chopra .. Respondent Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 27, 2006. Date : June 27, 2006. Date : June 27, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. Mutalik the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband who is aggrieved by the order dated 12/4/2004 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2 at Pune whereby the application filed at Exh.6 in Petition No.A-474 of 2003 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for the wife and daughter from the date of the application i.e. 11/8/2003. 2. The Family Court noted that the petitioner’s father was having an agency of Voltas Company for various products and the petitioner’s family has :2: commercial building at Lonawala fetching a rental to the extent of about Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The husband had also alleged that wife was working and was earning Rs.7500/- per month. He also submitted that he gets the salary of Rs.3500/- per month and all the properties shown were not in his name. The fact remains that the petitioner is not separated from his parents and is very much part of the Hindu joint family. The amount of Rs.12,000/- per month thus fixed for the maintenance of two members of the family i.e. the wife and daughter does not deserve to be called as disproportionate to the requirements to maintain or to the financial resources of the petitioner-husband and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)