1 wp2562.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2562 OF 2010 Himanshu Kumar ...Petitioner vs. Trupti Himanshu Kumar ...Respondent Ms Seema Sarnaik for the petitioner Ms Mrunalini Deshmukh with Mr.Sushant Chaware for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2010 P.C. 1 By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-husband who is drawing a salary in foreign currency which is equivalent to Rs,2,34,702/- has challenged the interim order passed by the Family Court by which he has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. The interim application is made by the respondent-wife in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. At the outset, it must be stated that the learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement that till the final disposal of the suit, the respondent does not intend to make any application for interim relief as regards separate residence or in the alternative, for any amount towards separate residence. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has taken the Court through the findings recorded by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the finding of the Family Court by pointing out that the Family Court had advised the petitioner to 2 wp2562.sxw reduce his expenditure which cannot be done. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to reply filed by the petitioner and in particular paragraph 2 thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after the marriage, the petitioner was forced to take family accommodation as per the rules prevailing in UAE (Dubai). She stated that as per the rules, the petitioner has no choice but take family accommodation with an agreement for a period of three years. Though the respondent has not returned to stay with him, the petitioner was forced to pay the rent. She pointed out that the petitioner has borrowed certain amount of loan from the bank for meeting the marriage expenses and he has to pay monthly installments of Rs.23,000/- and more per month towards repayment of the loan. She has invited the attention of the Court to the various details set out on pages 39 to 41 of the petition. She pointed out that if all the expenditure incurred by the petitioner on various items set out in the reply is considered, what is left to the petitioner is only Rs.6000/- per month. She submitted that the learned trial Judge was unnecessary influenced by the case of the petitioner that he is paying a sum of Rs. 19000/-to his mother. She submitted that considering the yardstick applied by the trial Court, the respondent can get at the most a sum of Rs. 19000/- per month. She submitted that the entire approach of the learned trial Judge is erroneous in as much as the learned Judge has chosen to advise the petitioner to reduce the expenses. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has completely ignored that the application was not under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 but the same was in a suit filed under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 3 wp2562.sxw 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. There does not seem to be any dispute at this stage that the petitioner is drawing monthly salary in foreign currency which is equivalent to Rs.2,34,000/- per month. The petitioner has given a long list of items on which he is incurring the expenditure every month . The said items are electricity and water bill Rs.-3640/-, cable bill Rs.-1560/-, Mobile recharge Rs.-13,000/-, Fitness and physiotherapy Rs.-15,470/-, traveling cost for reaching office Rs.-13,260/-, travelling cost for reaching the Dubai Fitness center Rs.-42,900/-, Breakfast bill Rs.-4680/-, Lunch bill Rs.-5850/-, Dinner bill Rs.-9750/-, Milk Rs.-2535/-, etc. It is not in dispute that except for costs incurred on account of physiotherapy, no documentary evidence is placed on record by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid claim. Such claim cannot be considered in absence of proof. The cost of travelling for reaching the fitness center at Dubai per month in Indian currency is alleged to be a sum of Rs.42,900/-. The cost of mobile recharge is alleged to be Rs.13,000/- in Indian Currency. The claim made by the petitioner as regards the aforesaid items of expenditure is exorbitant The case made out by the petitioner is that he is paying Rs.19,000/- per month to his mother out of the income which is admittedly received by the petitioner. What has been granted by the Family Court to the wife by way of maintenance is an amount which is even less than 1/4 th of the amount admittedly earned by the petitioner. It constitues about 21% of the monthly income of the petitioner. The claim made by the petitioner in the reply shows that the petitioner is maintaining a particular lifestyle in the foreign country in which he resides. His wife is also entitled to maintain a decent lifestyle consistent with 4 wp2562.sxw the status of her husband. Moreover, a statement is made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent does not intend to claim any amount by way of interim relief towards arrangement for residence. 4 There may be some justification in the criticism offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards some of the findings recorded by the Family Court. Considering the very high income of the petitioner and considering the fact that he has failed to adduce documentary evidence in support of various items except one of the items, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month fixed by the Family Court cannot be faulted with. In writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to interfere with interim order which is consistent with the income admittedly drawn by the petitioner. 5 Hence, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. 6 It is made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose of deciding the prayer for interim relief and the main suit will be decided on its own merits. 7 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, time of six weeks is granted to deposit the arrears in terms of impugned order. 8 The hearing of the main suit is expedited and the Family Court shall make an endeavour to decide the suit before the end of April 2011. JUDGE