1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1276 of 2008 Sou. Ashwini Anil Kandale Petitioner Vs. Shri Anil Rajaram Kandale Respondent Mr.A.J.Kenjale for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. June 5, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Kenjale, the learned counsel for the petitioner - wife. The respondent - husband has filed Marriage Petition No.490 of 2006 seeking divorce. The parties were married on 21/2/2003 and from the said wedlock the daughter - Siddhi is born. The daughter is about 3 & 1/2 years old as of now and in the said divorce petition the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite. By the impugned order dated 1/12/2007 the said application has been partly allowed and the respondent - husband has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.800/- per month along with Rs.2000/- by way of costs and Rs.1500/- by way of travel expenses from Satara to 2 Pune as and when required, to attend to the proceedings before the lower Court at Pune. . By this petition the wife is seeking enhancement in the maintenance amount and she claims that the said amount is inadequate to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Before the lower Court she had stated that she should be given an alimony of Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- by way of costs. In support of her claim she had stated that the husband has a family business and is also employed as an Engineer with a salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. . The husband while opposing the application had submitted before the lower Court that the wife was also getting an amount of Rs.1600/- per month by way of maintenance for herself and the minor daughter pursuant to the order passed on 30/11/2006 in Application No.165 of 2005 which was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was further pointed out that she was working and was drawing a salary of Rs.5000/- per month. . The learned Judge of the lower Court noted 3 that the husband could not bring on record any documentary proof regarding the employment of the wife. The wife has been staying with her parents and taking into consideration the fact that she has also been getting Rs.1600/- per month from the husband, the interim maintenance of Rs.800/- per month has been granted. Thus a total sum of Rs.2400/- is being paid by the husband every month by way of interim maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter as against the claim of Rs.4000/- per month made by the wife. . The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the travelling expenses of Rs.1500/- granted by the impugned order may not be adequate, more so when the petitioner alone cannot undertake the journey from Satara to Pune and she will be required to be accompanied by her father or brother or any other member of her father’s family. He also submitted that the impugned order does not take into consideration the monthly income of the husband. . I am satisfied that an amount of Rs.2400/- that the petitioner is presently getting from her husband should be adequate to maintain herself and 4 her minor daughter, during the pendency of the divorce petition and it would be appropriate that the petition is decided expeditiously. The reasoning set out by the lower Court cannot be termed as perverse or grossly erroneous so as to cause interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. . Hence the petition is rejected and it is directed that the divorce petition filed by the husband be heard and decided by the appropriate Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st December 2008. It is also made clear that the petitioner is not precluded from applying afresh for additional amount towards travelling expenses, the Court proceedings are unduly prolonged. (B.H.MARL