1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4183 OF 2009 Kamal S Khosla .. Petitioner Vs Ritu K Khosla .. Respondent Mr. Devang Sanghvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Mishra i/b Kavita Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 24/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though the matter is shown for orders, by consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard for admission. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-husband has impugned two orders, namely, the order dated 20.10.2008 passed on the application at Exhibit-9 and the order dated 30.3.2009 by which a conditional order was passed. T 2 By order dated 20.10.2008 the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month towards the maintenance of their two minor daughters and by order dated 30.3.2009 the Family Court passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears within 15 days, failing which his defence would be struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has wrongly taken into consideration the income of his father as a part of the petitioner’s income for awarding maintenance of Rs.8000/- to his daughters. He submits that the petitioner has no connection with the business of his father and his income is hardly Rs.8250/- per month. In support of this contention, he produced Income-tax Returns for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 showing his gross income for the year 2005-2006 as Rs.98,400/-. Secondly, he submits that in any case the Family Court ought not to have granted anything more than Rs.6000/- per month, in view of the averments made by the respondent-wife in her affidavit dated 22.9.2008 filed before the Family Court. In that affidavit, the respondent wife has stated that the expenditure towards medical expenses, school stationery, food and clothing and expenses for care-taker, for both the children, is Rs.6000/- per month. 4. I have perused the impugned order and the other material 3 to which my attention was specifically drawn. The petitioner has not produced on record his Income-tax Returns for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 for the reasons best known to him. He is claiming that his income is Rs.8250/- per month on the basis of the old income-tax returns for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006. In any case, it is now well settled that the court is not necessarily bound by the Income tax Returns of the respondent for awarding maintenance and the court can take into consideration several other factors which have bearing on the issue of maintenance including social and financial status of the parties as well as capacity of the husband. In my opinion, the court below after taking into consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly held that the income of the respondent is more than what he claims. Insofar as the total expenditure to be incurred towards medical expenses, school stationery, food, clothing and expenses for care-taker for both the children is concerned, it may be Rs. 6000/- per month. However, in the very said affidavit, the wife has stated that the fees of the school, viz. Little Angles School, where both the daughters are taking education, is Rs.3000/- excluding the expenditure over school stationery, clothing and food, medical expenses etc. Having regard to the affidavit and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my 4 opinion, the impugned order deserves no interference by this court in its extremely limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. Time to pay the arrears of maintenance, however, is extended by four weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to pay the arrears, the conditional order dated 30.3.2009 shall stand confirmed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)