1006wp960.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2011 Rajhans Rajaram Chakole ..vs.. Smt.Preeti Rajhans Chakole ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.P.Bhandarkar Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Sundaram, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 10th June, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20 th December, 2010 by which order the application for maintenance filed by the respondent-wife came to be allowed and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs.2500/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.1000/- per month each to the two children as interim maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 1/4/2010 during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner has filed the Hindu Marriage Petition (HMP) No.383 of 2009 claiming divorce inter alia on the ground mentioned in the said petition. In the said petition, the application, which was numbered as Exh.15 came to be filed by the wife. It is the case of the respondent-wife that she is a house wife and has no independent source of income and 1006wp960.11.odt 2 she has to look after two minor children. It is further the case of the respondent-wife that the petitioner-husband is a partner of one ‘Om Developers’ which is involved in real estate development. It is the case of the respondent-wife that the petitioner’s monthly income is in the range of Rs.1.50 lakhs to 2 lakhs per month. 2. Per contra, it was the case of the petitioner- husband that though he was a partner of the said firm, the said partnership was dissolved and the petitioner-husband is presently working as a office attendant on a monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. It was further the case of the petitioner that the maintenance awarded to the children was unwarranted in view of the fact that the petitioner was looking after the children. Significantly, no material was placed on record by the petitioner in support of his contention that the partnership firm of ‘Om Developers’ has dissolved, that he is working as an office attendant and earning Rs.3000/- per month and that his children were staying with him. The Family Court, on consideration of the case of the respondent-wife, fixed the interim maintenance as above. In my view, the said fixation of interim maintenance in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. After the order is passed, the parties through their counsel expressed a desire to resolve the dispute between the parties through mediation. They are agreeable to the 1006wp960.11.odt 3 appointment of Smt.M.P.Munshi, Advocate, as a Mediator. It is made clear that though the above writ petition has been dismissed, the parties would be free to arrive at full and final settlement in the course of mediation. The parties to appear before the Mediator on 20 th June, 2011 at 4.30 p.m. in the Mediation Centre of this court. JUDGE Chute