:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9104 OF 2007 Aniket R. Uphade ...Petitioner Versus Shri Ramakant Keshavrao Uphade ....Respondent ====== Mr.S.M.Sabrad, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Milind M. Sathaye, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an order passed below Exhibit-5 on 3.10.2007 in Special Civil Suit No. 93 of 2006. 2. This is a suit for maintenance filed on behalf of the minor by the mother. In that suit, an Application for interim maintenance was made claiming interim maintenance at the rate of 9,000/- per month. 3. The Trial Court after hearing both sides has :2: :2: :2: partly allowed the Application and directed the Original Defendant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of the filing of the Application i.e. 8.12.2006. The mother who has filed the suit on behalf of the minor has moved this Writ Petition, being aggrieved by the quantum of interim maintenance. 4. It is not in dispute that the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 38 of 2002 was filed and the mother- Sujata and Respondent-Ramakant who are husband and wife , so also, mother and father respectively of the minor have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. It is also true that the mother has relinquished her right for maintenance, past as well as future. However, it is her grievance that she did not relinquish the claim of maintenance of the minor, Aniket. In any event, it is her case that the respondent is obliged to maintain the said child. 5,. Assuming without admitting that such a Document is there on record, or the mother has relinquished allegedly the right of the minor for :3: :3: :3: maintenance, prima-facie the trial court has concluded that the same would amount to contracting out of the statute. In such circumstances, after referring to the material produced, the Trial court has granted Rs.1000/- as maintenance for the minor. 6. In the Application which was filed, the Mother had pointed out that the minor is with her. He was aged six years at the time of the filing of the suit. Insofar as, his maintenance is concerned, the quantum of Rs.1000/- is too meagre and inadequate, is the submission of Mr.Sabrad. 7. Mr.Sathaye, appearing for the respondent on the other hand supports the impugned order and contends that the marriage has been dissolved, way back on 11.9.2003. The petitioner mother has not allowed any access to the minor nor she is agreeable to hand over the custody of the minor to him. In such circumstances the claim at Rs.9,000/- per month was highly inflated. That apart, it is denied by the respondent before the trial court that he has any immovable properties or that his monthly earning is Rs.8,000/- per month. :4: :4: :4: 8. After perusing the petition and the Annexures thereto, including the impugned order, in my view, at this prima-facie stage without in any manner expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, but considering the pleas raised by the mother on behalf of the minor and the Reply-Affidavit, interest of justice would be subserved if Rs.2,500/- is determined as the monthly maintenance. Considering the cost of living and other expenses for the minor, Rs.1,000/ was inadequate. In such circumstances, the sum is enhanced to Rs.2,500/-. However, that sum will be payable from 3.10.2007 and prior thereto, the respondent to clear all arrears of maintenance from the date of the Application i.e. 8.12.2006 to 3.10.2007 within a period of 4 weeks from today. The sum of Rs.2,500/- which is payable from 3.10.2007 shall be cleared within 6 weeks from today and the monthly quantum of Rs.2,500/- payable to the plaintiff shall be paid on/or before the fifth of each month. 9. The order in any manner will not prejudice the right and contentions of the parties on merits. If the :5: :5: :5: Civil Judge Senior Division, Niphad is seized of Misc.Application No.13 of 2008 made by the respondent-father for custody, the same shall also be taken up by him after service is complete and an endeavour should be made to dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 2 months from the date the service is complete. All contentions in that behalf are also kept open. sd/- ********