-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8718 OF 2009 Sandhya Ravikaran Nirbhavane. ..Petitioner. Versus Ravikaran C. Nirbhavane. ..Respondent. Mr. Sandesh Patil for the petitioner. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar for respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 28, 2010. P. C. : 1. The petitioner – wife by filing this petition challenges the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Judge, Senior Division, Thane on applications below Exhibits 25 and 38 in Marriage Petition No.541 of 2006. The respondent – husband has filed proceedings for divorce under section 13(1)(a-i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner. There is no dispute that the marriage of the parties was solemnised in the year 1995 and out of their wedlock, one son by name Abhishek is born. There is no dispute that the petitioner is working in LIC and earning salary of approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month and the respondent is serving in the Central Excise Department and about his earning there is dispute. 2. The petitioner filed application at Exhibit 25 for interim -: 2 :- maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to son Abhishek on 29th October 2007. This application was disposed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 20th September 2008, thereby directing the respondent to pay interim maintenance @ of Rs. 5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of order till final disposal of the petition. The petitioner thereafter filed another application at Exhibit 38 for modification of the order dated 20th September 2008. Modification was sought on two counts. Firstly, the amount of interim maintenance granted earlier by the order dated 20th September 2008 ought to have been granted from the date of application and not from the date of order; and secondly, the respondent is promoted to the post of Inspector in Central Excise Department and his salary has increased and therefore the enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance was claimed. This application was also dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court by order dated 21st August 2009. As stated above the petitioner has impugned both these orders dated 20th September 2008 and 21st August 2009. 3. So far as the first ground of modification, that the amount of interim maintenance ought to have been granted from the date of application is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent on taking instructions from her client makes a statement that the respondent is ready to pay the amount of maintenance to the petitioner towards the -: 3 :- maintenance of their son Abhishek with effect from the date of application, i.e., 29th October 2007. In view of the statement, the petitioner’s grievance in this regard does not survive. 4. So far as the second ground of modification is concerned, it is worth to note that the petitioner is also employed in LIC and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, the minor son Abhishek is 11 years old and studying in 6th standard in DAV Public School at Nerul. Taking into considering that the school is a public school where the fees would be reasonably high and the average monthly expenses of a school going child, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child is sufficient. 5. Regarding respondent’s salary the petitioner claims that his salary has increased to Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent, however, claims that his salary is Rs.15,000/- to 16,000/- per month. Since I have already come to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the interim maintenance of child is sufficient, I need not go into that aspect at this stage. The petitioner is, however, granted liberty to apply afresh for enhancement of maintenance to the Family Court in case the circumstances are changed. In the facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of by passing following order. (i) In view of the statement mentioned above, the respondent is directed to pay amount of interim maintenance to the petitioner -: 4 :- @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application, i.e., 29th October 2007. The order dated 20th September 2008 passed below Exhibit 25 in M. J. Petition No. 541 of 2006 is modified to that extent. (ii) The order dated 21st August 2009 passed below Exhibit 38 in M.J. Petition No. 541 of 2006 is quashed and set aside to the extent of its applicability of interim maintenance from the date of application. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh for the enhancement of maintenance amount in the changed circumstances. 6. With these directions petition stands disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)