(1) (3) WP 3596/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 3596 OF 2011 Anjan Chakravarty .. Petitioner Vs. Anuja Anjan Chakravarty .. Respondent Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 24 th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner-husband has challenged the order of the Family Court No.7, Mumbai dated 09.03.2011 adjourning the Petition upon certain observations. 3. The Petitioner-husband filed a Petition for divorce. He has also claimed custody of the child. The wife has applied for maintenance. The wife was directed to be paid Rs.10,000/- p.m. by way of interim maintenance. That order has not been complied. The husband claims that he pays Rs.3,000/- every month. That is directly contrary to the order. The husband cannot decide the quantum of maintenance himself. It has adjudicated upon by a Competent Court upon settled principles and the facts of the case which the Court has done. 4. The order of interim maintenance has not been challenged in Appeal or Revision. The husband filed a (2) (3) WP 3596/11 Review Petition. 5. The Review Petition was directed to be heard along with main Petition. Evidence would be required to consider the final quantum. That cannot be done in Review Petition. Hence the interim order would prevail pending evidence led in the Suit. In fact the husband claims that he earns only Rs.5,000/- upon a certificate. The certificate has to be proved by its author. Such an application would not even be maintainable as Review Petition because all the aspects would have to be reconsidered de novo. 6. The interim order, therefore, remains. The husband has not challenged it in any other proceeding. 7. The main Petition for divorce of the husband and for maintenance of the wife was to go to trial. The husband did not fully comply with the interim order of maintenance. The provisions of law for breach of interim order, partly or fully, would apply. 8. The learned Judge gave the parties one and half month to clear the arrears to proceed with the Petition. The opportunity was not availed by the husband. The learned Judge recorded the fact that the husband has to open his case since he filed main Petition for divorce. 9. The Petitioner takes exception to the observation of the learned Judge that in case of failure to pay maintenance, he would be required “to face serious consequences in hearing his Petition for divorce”. In fact because of his failure, the learned Judge gave him (3) (3) WP 3596/11 an opportunity and time to clear all the arrears. 10. What the learned Judge has observed is the correct position in law for breach of the interim order. The husband’s Petition for divorce would not be able to proceed. It would have to be dismissed as the husband’s case on merits cannot be seen at the final hearing if the breach continues. The learned Judge has made that legal position clear. The learned Judge has neither threatened nor pressurized the Petitioner as claimed. 11. The order impugned is an order of adjournment. It requires no interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)