1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2008 Mohd. Jawad Razi ..Petitioner V/s. Smt.Zainab Ali Shirzade & ors ..Respondents Mr.Manish Bohra i/b.M/s.A.S.Khan & Associates, Advocate, for petitioner Mr.Ravindra Lokhande, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for first respondent. The petitioner is a husband, the first respondent is his wife and the second respondent is his daughter. Pending an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the first and second respondents, an interim order has been passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court 2 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month for the maintenance of the minor daughter. He has been also directed to pay admission fees to the extent of Rs.30,100/-. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that his monthly income at the highest is Rs.10,000/-. He has stated that now the petitioner has performed re-marriage and his second wife is pregnant. He submitted that the maintenance amount fixed is exorbitant considering material on record. He submitted that he is working as an employee in the family business of his father and uncle and except the employment, he has no source of income. The petitioner at present residing in a rented house. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have also perused copies of the Income Tax returns which are placed on record. Firstly, at this stage, it is very difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner is only an employee of his father and uncle who are admittedly running family business. The 'Saral' forms of the Income 3 Tax returns of the petitioner for the Assessment Years 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 show that the income of the petitioner from Salary is 'Nil' and his income from business for the said years is shown as Rs.65,000/-, Rs.95,000/-, Rs.1,15,000/- and Rs.1,37,941/- respectively. Thus, as stated earlier, prima facie as of today, his case that he is only a salaried employee cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, there is no scope to interfere in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with an interim Order passed pending an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 4. However, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.30,100/- as per the impugned Order and therefore, a reasonable time deserves to be granted to deposit the arrears of maintenance payable. 5. Petition is accordingly rejected. Time of three months from today is granted to pay the arrears of maintenance payable upto 30th 4 September, 2008. 6. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose of considering the merits of this petition and all the contentions of the parties in the pending application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)