1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.S. Datar for the petitioner. Mr. Saeed Akhtar for the respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 28th June 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9th January 2010 passed by the Family Court declining to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner. 3. In the marriage petition, the petitioner prayed for grant of interim maintenance for herself and two children. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court granted 2 maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to one child and Rs.10,000/- to the other child but declined to grant any interim maintenance to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the respondent fairly stated that the respondent does not want to challenge this order and would be paying Rs.25,000/- to the children. He further states that Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid towards interim maintenance for the children and the balance would be paid shortly. Statement is recorded and accepted. 5. The petitioner wife has been denied maintenance during the pendency of the petition on the ground that she had already received a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- from the respondent husband in the year 2007 and that amount was considered as enough for her maintenance during the pendency of the petition for divorce. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of Rs. 3 12,50,000/-, Rs.6,50,000/- have been returned by the father of the petitioner to the respondent. This is denied by the respondent who claims that it was payment in respect of some other transaction. Assuming the petitioner’s contention be true, still an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- of the respondent is admittedly still with the petitioner. There is no evidence on record to show that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which is lying with the petitioner, has in any way been spent by her till date. In the circumstances, in my view, the Family Court did not commit any error in not awarding maintenance to the petitioner for the time being. Needless to say that the petitioner is free to apply for modification of the order after the amount received by her is exhausted for her maintenance after the date of the order of the Family Court. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily with the clarification mentioned above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)