1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3966 OF 2009. Mahendra S/o. Pralhadrao Pihulkar, R/o. Khaparde Bagicha, Amravati. District : Amravati. .. PETITIONER. // VERSUS // 1. Minakshi Mahendra Pihulkar, R/o. C/o. M.M. Bhise, Plot No.29-A, Mahalaxminagar No.3, Manwada Road, District : Nagpur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Urban Division, Near Dafrin Ladies Hospital, Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited, District : Amravati. .. RESPONDENTS. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mrs. P.V. Thakare h/f. Shri Lambat, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. 1. This petition by husband is directed against an order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur directing the petitioner to pay 2/3rd of the retirement benefits received by him to respondent No.1/ wife. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 wife for herself as well as for a daughter, who was in IX standard, was getting maintenance allowance @ Rs.1,250/- per month i.e. Rs.750/- for wife and Rs.500/- for daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 18 and 20 of Hindu 2 Adoption and Maintenance Act a sum of Rs.350/- per month each was granted to the wife and daughter. The petitioner took retirement on medical ground. The respondent’s attempt to get appointment on compassionate ground in place of the petitioner failed. Therefore, the respondent/ wife filed an application for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- from the retirement benefits for educational and marriage expenses of the daughter. The learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay 2/3rd of the retirement benefits after adjusting the amount of maintenance already granted. Thus, it seems that the maintenance amount is adjusted in 2/3rd amount granted by the Family Court Judge. This is clarified in paragraph 6 of the order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner needs to spend heavily on his treatment and therefore, this order should be set aside. While need of the petitioner to spend on his treatment cannot be denied, the question of maintenance of respondent No.1 and her daughter also cannot be ignored. The learned Judge has not been unjust. Considering the need for expenses of education and marriage of the daughter, the order passed appears to be reasonable, does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.