1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2102 OF 2009 Abhijit D. Peshave ...Petitioner. v. Sangita A. Peshave & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Sanskar Marathe i/by Parag Shelke, advs. For the Petitioner. Ms.Sangita A. Peshave in person. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP for the R.No.3/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 13, 2010 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.1 in person. 2 Respondent No.1 is wife and the respondent no.2 is daughter of the petitioner. Respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court at Pune claiming maintenance. According to them, income of the petitioner was Rs. 55,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. Each of the respondents demanded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month with legal expenses. Impugned order shows that the petitioner had admitted that his gross salary is Rs. 37,000/-, out of which he had to pay an amount of Rs.5,300/- per month towards EMI for the loan taken for the house situated at Pune in which 2 the respondents are residing. As he is residing in Mumbai in connection with his job, he has to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as rent. He has also to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards the property tax. As per the order, he was also paying an amount of Rs.6876/- per month and Rs.1928/- per month towards the personal loans taken from two different banks and he is also paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to L.I.C. The Family Court did not take into consideration an amount of installments towards the personal loans and LIC premium and taking into consideration admitted payments made by him. The trial Court found that his net income to be Rs.18,600/- and accordingly, directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,500/- per month to the daughter and also Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an amount of Rs.1,000/-, which is deducted from his salary towards the L.I.C. is infact towards the medical insurance and that insurance is for the petitioner, his wife and daughter and that amount is deducted from his salary and that should also have been considered. If the repayment of the personal loans are not taken into consideration, it appears that he has to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month towards the rent of the house at Mumbai and an amount of Rs.5,300/- towards the installment of house 3 at Pune where the respondents are residing, an amount of Rs.500/- towards the property tax of that house, an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the premium to the LIC. After these deductions he is left with an amount of Rs.18,200/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even before the trial Court, he had offered and he is willing to live with the respondents but the respondent no.1 is not willing to live with him at Mumbai. However, the respondent no.1 has given reasons in her application as to why she cannot live with her husband. These circumstances can be taken into consideration at the time of decision of the main application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and not at this stage. It has to be borne in mind that an amount of installment and the property tax of the house at Pune is also practically for the benefit of the respondents, who are residing there. Petitioner, who is serving at Mumbai and living alone, will have to spend much more for himself than a person living with family. This aspect needs to be taken into consideration. Cost of living at Mumbai is particularly higher than in other cities. Therefore, in my considered opinion, interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.2,500/- per month for the daughter would be reasonable. 4 In view of the above, petition is partly allowed and the 4 petitioner shall be required to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent no.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent no.2 from the date of application, i.e., 28.5.2009. He will also be required to pay Rs.5000/- towards the litigation expenses as directed by the trial Court. 5 Petitioner shall pay arrears of the maintenance as per this order within two months. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., PE No.88/09 and dispose off the same within three months from this date. It is made clear that this order is passed on the prima-facie circumstances and the trial Court shall not be bound by the observations made in this order while deciding the petition finally on merits. 6 Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)