1 (24) WP 6361/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 6361 OF 2010 Deepika Prashant Biswas .. Petitioner Vs. Prashant Phanindra Biswas .. Respondent Mr. P. D. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Mr. Amarendra Mishra for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 25th November, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner wife has impugned the order of interim maintenance passed in the divorce petition of her husband. The husband is a salaried worker. The essential evidence is his salary certificate. The husband has himself produced his salary certificate. It shows gross amount of Rs.24,823/- and the net amount of Rs.22,963/- earned by the husband in February, 2010. The net amount is arrived at after deducting the Employee Provident Fund and Professional Tax. The learned Judge has further deducted conveyance expenses, travel expenses and medical expenses. After deducting these expenses the learned Judge has arrived at a further net balance of amount from the husband’s salary at Rs.16640/-. It is this amount which has to be considered for granting the maintenance to the wife and child of the husband. 3. The wife has alleged that the husband owns a 2 (24) WP 6361/10 car, motor cycle and flat with various amenities. The husband has denied these aspects except that his flat is a one bedroom flat in which he resides with his parents. 4. The husband has sought to show several loans taken by him and several EMIs paid on this loans. The husband has shown loans from City Financial, HSBC Bank, HDFC Bank and Barclays Finance. These are personal loans taken by the husband. The husband cannot claim deduction from the primary liability of supporting his own family by taking various loans which he has to repay. In fact that reflects the character of the husband who takes loans for various purposes without discharging his moral as well as statutory liabilities. These loans cannot be considered and are rightly not considered by the learned Judge. 5. What is only to be seen that under the balance amount of Rs.16,640/- the amount of Rs.2,000/- is granted to the wife as well as child for their maintenance. 6. The husband claims that the wife is working. The husband contends that the wife earns from her residence. The husband has not substantiated such claim. Hence that amount cannot be taken into consideration. 7. The husband contends that his parents are ill and he expends amounts to support them. No amount is shown or substantiated. Hence no such amount can be deducted on that score either. 8. It is only from Rs.16,640/- that a reasonable amount of maintenance must be paid for the wife and child 3 (24) WP 6361/10 of the husband. The child is of 16 months. The expenses for infancy are required to be made. Thereafter provision for the child’s education is also required to be made. Rs.2,000/- for the maintenance of the wife as well as child is grossly insufficient. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be interfered with. From the total amount of Rs.16,640/- the husband would be reasonably required to pay Rs.5,000/- for the maintenance of the wife and child. The order is amended accordingly. 9. The husband shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and child. The amount of costs granted by the Trial Court in the impugned order is not interfered with. 10. The husband shall pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance from the date of application made in the Trial Court. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)