1 wp612-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPLICATION JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 612 of 2011 Munawar Abdul Majeed Khokra ..Petitioner v/s. Roshan Munawar Khokra & Anr. ..Respondents Mrs. Preeti B. Walimbe for the petitioner Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 31st March, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent herein filed application for interim maintenance being Proceeding No.E-305 of 2009. In the said proceeding the respondent herein filed interim Application No.211 of 2009 at Exhibit 10 for interim maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court by Order dated 22.10.2010 granted the said application and has directed the petitioner to pay to respondent wife Rs.3000/- per month and to pay Rs.1000/- per month each to the three children from 11.11.2009. This Order dated 22.10.2010 is challenged by the petitioner. 2 wp612-11.sxw 2. I have heard learned counsels on both sides. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not filed proper reply before the learned Judge before passing the impugned order. This submission can’t be accepted because it is not the case of the petitioner that the learned Judge of the Family Court did not allow the petitioner to put his case in the proper perspective . The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that at the relevant time when this application was being decided, the petitioner was jobless and this fact has not been considered by the court. I have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner to the application for maintenance. Nodoubt, he states that the petitioner was jobless, but he attributes reasons for his being jobless to his wife on the ground that the respondent filed complaint under Section 498A IPC. This argument of the petitioner just can’t be accepted. If the petitioner had lost his job, it was open for the petitioner to procure appropriate certificate from the employer who could have easily certified that petitioner had lost job on a particular day. The petitioner has produced the Certificate issued by his employer dated 3.2.2011 wherein it is stated that the establishment run by the owner got closed on account of heavy 3 wp612-11.sxw floods in Surat in 2006 and the petitioner left the job. If this Certificate could be issued by the Employer in February 2011, the said certificate could have as well been procured by the petitioner during the pendency of this petition and surely before 22.10.2010 when the final order was passed. If this is so, the petitioner has not placed before the Court his case in a truthful manner. 3. The petitioner should have produced necessary documents to have minimum amount fixed as maintenance to his wife and minor children. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the fact in the proper perspective and has arrived the amount of maintenance. The same is found to be reasonable. In view of the above, no interference is required in the impugned order. 5. Last, but not the least, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Order dated 22.10.2010 is an interim order and that at the stage of final hearing of the Application NO.E-305 of 2009 the petitioner should get full opportunity to place all the documents 4 wp612-11.sxw and examine necessary witness in his favour. This submission is correct. The petitioner will be at liberty to exploit all the opportunities to place his case before the Court in its proper perspective. 6. There is no need to grant specific liberty to the petitioner to present all his documents in his case at the stage of final hearing. It is implicit that the principles of natural justice do contain such liberty. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid the following order is passed. ORDER i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]