* 1 * WP.5143.2011 28.9.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5143 OF 2011 Balaram N. Pimple ......Petitioner V/S. Deepali B. Pimple ......Respondent * * * * Mr. J.M. Chodankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aruna N. Ghadge, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- R.G. KETKAR, J. 28 September, 2011. P.C. :- 1) Heard Mr. Chodankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aruna Ghadge, learned counsel for the respondent. 2) By this petition, the petitioner-husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-4, Mumbai in interim application No. 204 of 2010 in Petition No. A-774 of 2010. By that order, the learned Judge has allowed the application made by the respondent at Exhibit-17 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent- wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each for his two children, son-Harshal and daughter-Siddita (i.e. aggregate Rs.20,000/- per month) towards their maintenance with effect from the date of the application i.e. 18th * 2 * WP.5143.2011 28.9.2011 August, 2010 until the decision of the main petition. 3) Mr. Chodankar submitted that the respondent has filed application claiming maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and in that application, she had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. He therefore, submitted that the respondent-wife is not entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and the Family Court was not justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to her. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to take back the respondent-wife and therefore the order deserves to be set aside. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. She submitted that the wife alongwith two minor children were thrown out of the matrimonial home in the midnight and she has no source of income. She is totally dependent upon her parents. She further submitted that despite passing of order on 22nd March, 2011, the petitioner has not paid any amount towards maintenance. 5) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In paragraph-7 of the order, the trial Court has recorded that the petitioner-husband who is a Civil Engineer is working in Reliance Energy. Perusal of the salary slip shows that his * 3 * WP.5143.2011 28.9.2011 average income is about Rs.60,000/- to Rs.65,000/- per month and the total deductions are beneficial to the petitioner only. The family Court therefore recorded a finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the respondent. In paragraph-8, the Family Court recorded that the respondent is paying the school fees, classes fees, charges for uniform and is incurring other miscellaneous expenses. The learned judge held that considering the requirement of the respondent and her children, as also the capacity of the petitioner and further having regard to the petitioner’s status, the trial Court found it just and proper to award maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month each to the children. I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error of law, apparent on the face of record. It can’t be said that the impugned order suffers from any perversity. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent-wife has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, she cannot claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month is concerned, I do not find any substance in this submission. As and when the application made by the respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 comes up for consideration, the petitioner will be at liberty to point out the order passed by the Family Court on 22nd March, 2011. I do not find any * 4 * WP.5143.2011 28.9.2011 justification for interfering with the impugned order. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. [R.G. KETKAR, J]