1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 455 OF 2010 Dr. Aditya Kuldiprai Kapil .. Petitioner V/s Dr. (Mrs.) Ritu Aditya Kapil .. Respondent Ms. Smita Gaidhani for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Singh for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition is directed against an order dated 9th October 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai on an application for maintenance filed by the respondent wife. 4. In the application, the respondent wife has claimed maintenance for herself, rent for the residential flat and maintenance for the children. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not challenge that 2 part of the order which grants maintenance to the children. Statement is recorded and accepted. 5. As regards the maintenance to be paid to the wife and the rent of the flat, the Trial Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the respondent was earning Rs.2,500/- per month (see para 16 of the order of the Trial Court). In the affidavit filed in reply to the present petition, the respondent has stated in para 6 as follows:- “I say that since April 2008, the Respondent (wife) has started her professional work on a part time basis and her average earnings were around Rs. 12,000/- per month” In view of the clear admission by the respondent made on an affidavit filed before this Court, the order of the Trial Judge based upon an assumption that monthly income of the respondent was Rs.2,500/- is required to be set aside. 6. The petitioner submits that income of the respondent is much more than Rs.12,000/- per month. 3 7. Since the exact income earned by the respondent is disputed, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for deciding afresh the respondent’s application for maintenance and compensation for payment of rent. It is clarified that the order for maintenance to the children stands as it is. 7. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law with liberty to the parties to file additional evidence/material before the Family Court. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)