1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO:1674/2009 (Pankaj Kamble vs. Smt. Shruti Kamble) & WRIT PETITION NO. 2248/2009 (Smt.Shruti Kamble vs. Pankaj Kamble ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Minaz Dandhala Adv.for wife Mr. Ambilwade, Adv.for husband CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 09, 2009. 1. Since the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are common and since the two Writ Petitions challenge the order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, on 15.12.2008 they are heard together and are decided by this common order. 2. The parties to the petitions are the husband and wife. The wife had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition before the Family Court, Nagpur, for grant of decree of divorce. During pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the wife for grant of maintenance pendente lite. According to the wife, she was unable to maintain herself as she had no independent source of income. It was stated by the wife in the application that the husband was doing a job in Reliance Company and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was then stated that he earns an amount of Rs. 25,000 from the 2 land development business. The total income of the husband, according to the wife, was Rs.45,000/- per month as he was receiving Rs. 5,000/- per month towards the rent. The wife, therefore, claimed maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. The husband filed the reply to the application and stated that the wife was working in Sancheti Public School, as a Music teacher. It was stated that she was a stage artist and was also performing in dramas. The husband further stated that she has conducted a number of stage shows and programmes. According to the husband, one of her video album was also released. The husband stated in the reply that the wife was leading an adulterous life. Lastly it was stated in the reply that every allegation made by the wife in regard to the income of the husband, was denied in toto. 4. The Family Court, on an appreciation of the pleadings of the parties, by the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife from the date of the application till the disposal of the petition on merits along with cost of litigation of Rs. 3,000/-. One petition has been filed by the husband for quashing the order dated 15.12.2008 and the other has been filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance amount. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the application, the reply, and an 3 affidavit filed by the wife before the Family Court; as also the impugned order dated 15.12.2008. On perusal of the same it is clear that the Family Court did not commit any error in directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the wife from the date of the application till disposal of the petition along with costs of litigation of Rs. 3,000/-. The Court rightly held that the allegations levelled by the parties against each other on the merits of the matter, could have been decided at a later stage and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the wife, for financial support. The Family Court observed that both the parties had not tendered any documentary evidence to substantiate the statements made in the application and the reply and, in such circumstances, since the husband was serving as a Godown Superrvisor, the wife was entitled to grant of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. The Family Court rightly held that the wife had not proved that the husband was earning monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- from the land development business, so also the husband had not produced anything to show that she was a stage artist or that she had released her music album. 6. Since the approach of the Family Court in deciding the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite was just and proper and since the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 grants reasonable amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, along with litigation charges of Rs. 3,000/-, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgments reported in 2008 BCR 4 (Cri) Page 2 and the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court decided on 24.4.2007 in CM No. 40/2005 and, relied on by the counsel for the wife, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case 6. In the result, the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare