1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2595/2011 Shri Shriram Marotrao Kuche vs. Shri Mamta Shriram Kuche. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mrs. S.W.Deshpande, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. S.A.Dutonde, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATE : 04.08.2011 The above writ petition takes exception to the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Family Court, Amravati by which order the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6000/- p.m. came to be granted to the respondent - wife. The Family Court has taken into consideration the income of the petitioner herein which has been reflected in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order. The facts mentioned in the impugned order disclose that the petitioner – husband is a man of means and, therefore, the trial court fixed interim maintenance at Rs. 6000/- per month. It is further required to be noted that in the proceedings filed by the respondent under section 125 of Cr.P.C. the respondent - wife was granted Rs. 4000/- p.m. as maintenance by an order dated 18.4.2011 which related back to the date of filing of the application. It is submitted by the 2` learned counsel for the respondent -wife that not a single paisa has been paid by the petitioner though the order has been passed as long as in the month of February 2011. When a suggestion was put to the petitioner husband to deposit some amount in this court, may be 50% of the amount outstanding under both the orders till this date, no candid answer was forthcoming. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in spite of the petitioner having suffered two adverse orders, submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 5000/- which, in my view, is ridiculous considering the aforesaid two amounts which have already been granted to the respondent – wife. The bona fides of the petitioner are therefore, doubtful and it seems that the petitioner just wants to buy time. The writ court cannot aid such a litigant. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE patle 3`