1 WP.4715/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4715 OF 2010 Mr. Gangaprasad Harishchandra Maurya ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Sumitra Gangaprasad Maurya ...Respondent Mr. Mukesh Pabani h/f. Mr. Manoj Singh & Mr. Sanjay Singh i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Mourya for Petitioner Ms. Nausheen Yousuf for Respondent No.1 (V.P not filed) CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. An order of interim maintenance has been passed by the IV Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai which is impugned in this Petition. The wife applied for interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The wife showed the husband’s business of Mayur Collections. The husband has a garment factory at Powai. The husband himself has produced the detailed bank account from 2004 to 2008. The application is taken out in 2008 and has been disposed off in May 2010. The fact that the husband has a garment factory is not denied. The learned Judge has considered he having a factory in Mumbai. The bank accounts shows numerous deposits and withdrawals until just before the filing of the application for maintenance. The 2 WP.4715/2010 application for maintenance is filed in October 2008 and the bank account of the husband, which had various entries earlier from 2007 to July 2008, shows a complete absence of any entry from September 2008. The learned Judge has considered the fact of he having a factory and the fact of the bank account. The learned Judge has also considered that “there is no business of the Petitioner from Mayur Collections” as the bank account shows only two entries of September and October 2008 for transfer of cheque and one cash withdrawal of Rs.5000/- by November 2008. Of course no business is seen precisely from the time the application is taken out for maintenance. That however, does not mean that the business is stopped. The Petitioner may have another bank account hitherto unknown. The Petitioner continues to have the garment factory. The total absence of showing any business speaks much of the Petitioner. The appreciation of this evidence by the learned Judge is correct by showing no transactions in the bank account. The fact that the Petitioner’s business is closed, as is his case, is not made out when the factory is continued to be owned and operated by the husband. The observation of the learned Judge from the prima facie evidence is, therefore, correct and need not be interfered with in respect of the husband’s business. 2. The husband also contends that the wife has a business of tea powder and milk powder. This is shown only from a Shops 3 WP.4715/2010 and Establishment Licence. No other evidence is produced to show the business or its extent. The learned Judge has rightly concluded that from the mere licence the extent of the business cannot be made out. The husband would have to show further evidence at the stage of trial for the extent of the business of the wife, if any. The husband’s case that she is earning Rs. 40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- is not substantiated. 3. The husband’s further case that the wife lives in a luxurious flat at Mira Road and has opened various bank accounts is also not substantiated. It would be for the husband to show the style of living of the wife and produce her bank accounts at the stage of evidence. 4. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the husband to show that she should not be paid maintenance despite his earnings as reasonably calculated by the learned Judge. Of course the husband would be entitled to a modification in the order upon he producing the relevant evidence at the stage of trial. The impugned order is only for interim maintenance and is not required to be interfered with. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)