Lsp 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.1896 of 2008 Mr.Rajesh Jeevan Kittur ...Petitioner V/s. Mrs. Dipalee Rajesh Kittur ...Respondent Mrs. Vidya S.Gole for the Petitioner Mrs.M.P.Thakur, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mrs. Gole, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner husband who is aggrieved by the order dated 21-11-2007 passed by the Family Court at Bandra thereby allowing the interim application for maintenance filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance. 2. The Petitioner and Respondent were married on 26-10-2001 and a daughter was born from the said wedlock on 4-9-2002. The husband alleges that the wife deserted him from 3-6-2004 and started residing at her parents’ home. On or about 28-1-2005 the wife has filed Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and it has been registered as MJ Petition No.213-A of 2005. On or about 14-3-2005 the Petitioner husband has filed divorce petition before the Family Court at 2 Bangalore under Section 13(1) (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. Interim Application No. 144/2005 was moved by the wife in her divorce petition before the Family Court at Bandra praying for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and the same amount for the child. By the impugned order the Learned Judge of the Family Court was pleased to grant interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the applicants. 4. As before the Family Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on account of his sickness he has left his job and he is now self employed and is not doing so well so as to earn sufficient amount to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was also submitted that on account of his sickness he is not able to work on all days and is incapacitated from earning sufficient income. The impugned order notes that in the reply filed by the husband opposing the application for maintenance, he simply denied the wife’s statement that his income was Rs.60,000/- and did not bring any document on record regarding his present income. 5. On the directions issued by this Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record the 3 income-tax returns for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06. The total income in the first year is shown at Rs.3,43,780/- and for the second year at Rs. 5,48,990/- and his income was assessed for tax. Having regards to this income it cannot be said that the Learned Judge of the Family Court was in errors in awarding the total amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and the daughter more so when the Petitioner failed to bring on record any reasonable evidence insupport of his present income and on the basis of the income-tax returns placed on record today, it is evident that the Family Court was justified in passing the impugned order. 6. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The Petition stands rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]