: 1 : cwp-2170-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2170 OF 2011 Manoj Manohar Dixit .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Arundhati Manoj Dixit .. Respondent ......... Mr. J.D. Khairnar for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 25th MARCH, 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioner herein filed proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Pune bearing No. P.A. 899 of 2008 against the respondent. The respondent herein filed an application for maintenance during the pendency of the petition at Exh.17. The learned Judge of the Family Court No.4 has by his order dated 10th December, 2010 directed the petitioner husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of the application. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- have been provided for. This order dated 10th December, 2010 is challenged. Learned Counsel : 2 : cwp-2170-11=.sxw for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner resigned from his job on 30th December, 2008 and that is how today he is without any salary and source of income. According to him, this fact was pointed out to the Court however, learned Judge has not considered the point. He wanted this Court to interfere in the order dated 10th December, 2010 on this ground. Another point raised by the petitioner pertains to production of forged salary certificate dated 16th October, 2009. A copy of which is at page 39. According to the petitioner in the course of hearing of the interim application, the respondent had disclosed through interrogatories that the respondent is earning Rs.11,695/- after deduction. According to the petitioner the certificate dated 16th October, 2009 which was produced by the respondent in the Court is forged and this information was received by the petitioner in February, 2011. According to the petitioner salary of respondent as of May, 209 was Rs.17,963/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that this fact has come to his knowledge in February, 2011. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that order dated 30th December, 2008 has been secured by the petitioner by placing before the Court forged document. He, therefore submitted that the impugned order should be set aside. 2. After having considered the submissions advanced across the bar, : 3 : cwp-2170-11=.sxw I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 10th December, 2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court could not explain as to how he wants to allege that the Certificate dated 16th October, 2009 is forged. Needless to mention that if it is the case of the petitioner that Certificate dated 16th October, 2009 is forged, he will have to produce before the Court sufficient material in support of the said proposition. Statement just made across the bar cannot be accepted. 3. The petitioner has not produced any document before the learned Judge by which the learned Judge could consider the stand of the petitioner that he had resigned from his services on 30th December, 2008. A specific observation has been made in para 10 of the impugned order to that effect. Before this Court the petitioner could not produce the documentary evidence to show that he has left the job on 30th December, 2008. I do not want to go into the details, at this juncture and investigate why the petitioner has left the job. Looking to the record which was produced before the learned Judge, learned Judge of the Family Court fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as interim maintenance. I am of the view that the learned Judge has considered the income of the petitioner, need of the respondent, of course on the basis of status of the petitioner, salary drawn by him and has rightly fixed the quantum : 4 : cwp-2170-11=.sxw of maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month, no interference in the said order is required. 4. If the petitioner wants to allege that forged salary certificate was produced before the learned Judge to secure order dated 10th December, 2010, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for modification of the order on the said ground. Same is the case as regards the petitioner resigning from the services from his earlier job. However, the modification of the order cannot operate prior to the order dated 10th December, 2010 as the petitioner has challenged order and this court has expressed a view that on the basis of the record before the Court, the Court has passed appropriate order. Hence, if any change occurs in the quantum of maintenance that can be from January, 2011. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed views on the points raised regarding change of circumstances In view of the above, following order is passed. ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. : 5 : cwp-2170-11=.sxw (ii) If the petitioner is of the view that the case can be made for modification of the order dated 10th December, 2010 based on the changed circumstances, he is free to do so. That application shall be disposed of on merits. (iii) This court has not expressed views on the merits of the matter. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)