: 1 : cwp-7691-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7691 OF 2010 Ravi Rakesh Agarwal .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Kavita Ravi Agarwal .. Respondent ......... Mr. J.M. Puranik for the petitioner None for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 17th MARCH, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent herein filed divorce proceedings before the learned Judge of the Family Court being P.A. No. 97 of 2009. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application for maintenance u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned Judge of the family court considered the merits of the matter and passed order dated 25th June, 2009 directing the petitioner to pay to respondent Rs.7,500/- per month towards interim maintenance from 28th April, 2009 till the disposal of the main petition. Litigation costs of Rs,7,500/- was also provided for. The petitioner thought it fit to make an application for review under : 2 : cwp-7691-10=.sxw Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. as according to him certain aspects were not considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court. That Review Application was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 7th July, 2010. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 25th June, 2009 and order dated 7th July, 2010. Though notice was issued, respondent has remained absent. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is noticed that the interim application for maintenance was filed in March, 2009. It was disposed of by order dated 25th June, 2009. According to the petitioner, he lost his job in December, 2008 itself. According to the petitioner, this fact was stated in the written statement and this fact was not considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court while disposing of the application dated 25th June, 2009. According to the petitioner even at the stage of review, the fact that the petitioner was jobless on the date of the application in March, 2009 was not considered. 3. Since the petitioner filed review against order dated 25th June, 2009, the said order dated 25th June, 2009 has to be considered as having been merged in the order dated 7th July, 2009 passed below Review Application. : 3 : cwp-7691-10=.sxw 4. According to the petitioner the document was produced before the Court to show that the petitioner was without any job on the date when the application was filed. Pleadings to that effect are not satisfactory and the document on the basis of which petitioner wanted to claim that he was jobless in March, 2009 is not even produced before this Court for its perusal. In substance, the petitioner has not satisfactorily made out the case that he was jobless. Even if it is accepted for a moment that he was jobless on the date of filing of the application, the Court cannot ignore the fact that prior to loosing the job, the petitioner was working in Sydney, Australia and was earning Rs. 4500/- per month Australian dollars would be equivalent to Indian rupees i.e. roughly Rs.1,35,000/- per month. He has not given particulars as to for how many days prior to loosing of the job the petitioner was working in Sydney, Australia. In any case, taking into consideration the salary of Rs.1,35,000/-, surely the petitioner must have saved substantial amount and he must be earning substantial returns on the amount so saved even though he was jobless. In my view, it was necessary for the petitioner to fairly state to the Court what was his financial status on the day when the application was filed and then it was open for him to put up a case that he does not have sufficient income to take care of himself. Across the bar, learned : 4 : cwp-7691-10=.sxw Counsel for the petitioner stated that after he lost the job, his parents were taking his care. It is difficult to accept this statement. 5. In any case, looking to the record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly arrived at the interim maintenance payable to the respondent. It is noted that the divorce proceedings filed by the respondent are pending. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated across the bar that the petitioner is the normal resident of Sydney and he is required to be in India to attend the legal proceedings. Having expressed the desire to confirm the order of maintenance and looking to the fact that the petitioner is a normal resident of Sydeney and also noting the nature of proceedings, it would be proper to direct the learned Judge of the Family Court to hear and dispose of the proceedings for divorce pending before him by 31st December, 2011. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the petition at the state of admission. ORDER (i) Petition is rejected. Out of indulgence, it is hereby ordered that the learned Judge of the Family Court before whom the divorce proceedings filed by the respondent namely P.A. No.97 of 2009 are pending shall dispose of the same preferably by 31st : 5 : cwp-7691-10=.sxw December, 2010. (ii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner shall co-operate with the learned Judge of the Family Court. (iii) Petitioner to tender authenticated copy of this order before the learned Judge so that he can fix the date for final hearing. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)