(1) (22) WP 6534/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 6534 OF 2010 Vishal Vilas Deshmukh .. Petitioner Vs. Pooja Vishal Deshmukh .. Respondent Mr. Madhav Jamdar with Mr. Inderpal Singh Nirmale i/b ALMT Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Tadke for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 9 th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. The Petitioner-husband has challenged the order of the Family Court No.5, Pune granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent-wife and Rs. 6,000/- to their minor son. The Petitioner was stated to be in the business of water transport. He is stated to be having various tankers. He is stated to be earning Rs.30-40 lacs per annum. The Petitioner refuted this entire case. He contends that the business was of his father. The tankers were of his father and therefore the income was of his father. The father's business is not disputed. The Petitioner claims to be a salaried worker and earning salary of Rs.4,500/-. It may be mentioned that such salary is earned by peons. Counsel on his behalf stated that he is a computer operator. The Petitioner produced his salary certificate. That has not been accepted by the learned Judge. The salary certificate does not show that he is a computer operator. It shows he was working in A.V. Process. The salary certificate would have to be proved. The signatory would (2) (22) WP 6534/10 have to be cross-examined. It is correct not to accept an incredible salary certificate when the Petitioner's father is admittedly in water supply and transport business. The Petitioner claims neither to be working in the business with his father nor having own business. That claim is far fetched. The Petitioner's business is reflected in the documents relied upon by the Petitioner himself. The learned Judge has rightly rejected placing reliance upon the salary certificate. 2. The learned Judge has considered that the Petitioner pays premiums to the LIC of Rs.10,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.99,999/- which shows his financial capacity. The Petitioner's Counsel relied upon a certificate of Bank of Maharashtra to show that the LIC premiums were not paid by him but by the Petitioner's father. The certificate shows the LIC premiums paid by the proprietary concern of Vishal Transport. The Petitioner is Vishal. The proprietor is stated to be his father. That certificate would also have to be proved and the signatory of the certificate would have to be cross-examined. A reading of this evidence shows that the transport business, which is a proprietary concern of the name of the Petitioner which is itself produced by the Petitioner, has paid the aforesaid LIC premiums which the learned Judge has considered. Upon such easy circumstances of the Petitioner the moderate order of the maintenance is passed. 3. The Petitioner claims that the wife's father is also in transport business and the wife assists him in that business. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner made a grievance that the learned Judge has not considered (3) (22) WP 6534/10 this fact. The business of the wife’s father is immaterial and the father is not liable to maintain his married daughter. 4. What the learned Judge has rightly considered is the dishonest claim of the Petitioner to be earning salary fit for a peon. The order does not require any interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. The interim order in this Petition comes to an end. The trial Court's order shall be complied. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)