:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2008 Sameer Baswant Bhandare ..Petitioner Vs. Pradnya Sameer Bhandare ..Respondent Mr. P.R. Naidu for petitioner. Mrs. P.S. Bhandare, respondent party-in-person present. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 17, 2008. Date : April 17, 2008. Date : April 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Naidu the learned counsel for the petitioner - husband, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court at Mumbai along with an application for interim maintenance filed by the wife. The Family Court has directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the wife and an equal amount to the minor daughter by way of interim maintenance pending the application for maintenance filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, :2: 1956 (the Act for short). 2. It was contended by Mr. Naidu at the out set that the impugned order is passed without there being any application and the main application which is registered as Petition No. C-95 of 2007 is still pending. He then submitted that the wife left the matrimonial home on her own accord and, in fact, she has deserted the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that none of the clauses mentioned in Section 18 (2) of the Act were attracted in this case and, therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court committed a grave error in passing the impugned order. Mr. Naidu also invited my attention to the averments made by the husband in his reply to the main petition that the wife was working as a stenographer and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. The impugned order clearly states that the husband admitted his monthly income of Rs.15,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India where he works. There is no dispute and as has been stated by the respondent-wife in her petition that the parties :3: were married at Mumbai on 5/2/2001 and out of the said wedlock, daughter Akansha was born on 20/12/2001. The wife came out with a clear case that husband used to come home late at night in a drunken condition and used to abuse and beat her. The parents of the husband were very keen that he should have separate home and, therefore, the husband used to demand a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. He also used to ask her about her bank balance. She further stated that after she returned to the matrimonial home with her infant daughter, ill-treatment at the hands of the husband restarted along with the demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. As the parents insisted, the husband took a separate accommodation in Kharghar and within one and half month of moving into the new home, the husband act of the atrocities and cruelty restarted. She has set out a specific incident of June 2006 in which her head was dashed against a wall by the husband 4-5 times and she lodged a police complaint. She has further stated that on 4/1/2007 when she was cooking at about 8.30 p.m., the husband caught hold her from behind and tried to push her on the burning cooking gas. She went to her parents’ home on :4: 5/1/2007 and also lodged a complaint with Kalamboli Police Station on 10/1/2007. On account of this behaviour of the husband, she left the matrimonial home and joined her parents. These averments made out a prima facie case under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act to file an application for maintenance. 4. So far as interim maintenance is concerned, the respondent-wife, who is present as party-in-person before me, has placed on record a copy of the separate notice taken out and titled as application for interim maintenance and it has been supported by an affidavit as claimed by the wife. So far as the wife’s income is concerned, M/s. Somatico Pharmacal Pvt. Ltd. appears to be her employer and the appointment letter dated 17/7/2006 issued by the said Company appointing her as a Steno, indicates that her basic salary is Rs.4286/-, House Rent Allowance is Rs.2100/- and Personal Allowance is Rs.1000/-, which makes a total of Rs.7386/- as against the admitted monthly income of husband of Rs.15,000/-. 5. As noted earlier, by the impugned order, :5: interim maintenance has been fixed at Rs.1500/- per month for the wife and equal amount for the minor daughter as against the main claim of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2500/- respectively. Mr.Naidu referred to a decision of this court (DB) in the case of Atul Sashikant Mude vs. Niranjana Atul Mude [I(1999) DMC 551 (DB)]. In fact, the said decision supports the impugned order. I am, therefore, satisfied that the challenge to the impugned order as raised in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is devoid of merits and hence the petition fails at the threshold. 6. The petition is rejected summarily. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The amount depoisted is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent-wife. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)