WP/1675/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1675 OF 2009 RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJESH SURYABHAN GAGRE V/S MANGAL RAJESH GAGRE ... Shri Darshan D. Pokharkar, Advocate for petitioner and Shri Santosh S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH, J. Dated : 7.6.2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule, by consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner/husband challenges the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the learned Civil Judge S.D. Shrirampur below Exhibit 8 in HMP No.31 of 2007 dated 7.11.2008. By the said order the husband was directed to make payment of Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards interim maintenance form 12.4.2007 till disposal of the main proceeding. Apart from this, Rs.2,000/- were also granted in favour of the respondent / wife by the trial court towards costs of the proceeding. 4. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties with assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Petitioner submits that he is working as a labour with daily WP/1675/2009 2 news paper "Punya Nagari". He has denied the allegation of the respondent that he is an employee of the said news paper and getting Rs.7,000/- per month by way of salary. According to respondent wife, apart from this, petitioner gets an income of Rs.1,00,000/- from the agricultural land held by his father, wherein cash crops like sugar cane, wheat etc. are being grown. 6. After hearing respective counsel, in my view, order impugned is based on the material placed on record. So far salary of the petitioner is concerned, respondent wife has contended that he is getting Rs. 7,000/- per month, which contention has been denied by the petitioner. Salary income of the petitioner is a fact within the specific knowledge of the petitioner. Under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is an obligation of the petitioner to disclose his income and/or place on record the documentary or other evidence to substantiate his contention in his reply that he is not receiving Rs.7,000/- per month towards salary. Except a bare denial, the petitioner has not placed any material on record. Respondent / wife, at the most, can raise a contention in respect of salary of the husband, which she has stated on oath. Trial Court has accepted the said statement made on oath. So far agricultural income is concerned, the observation of the trial Court are in paragraph No.13 of the order. 7. Since I am satisfied that the order impugned cannot be interfered with, I am not recording any findings on the point of agricultural income alleged to have been received by the petitioner Suffice to record that the salary income of the petitioner, as alleged by the wife, is material and award of Rs.1000/- per month made by the trial Court is just and proper. WP/1675/2009 3 I do not find any perversity in the impugned order requiring any interference, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the order dated 23.3.2009, Rs.6,000/- were directed to be deposited by the petitioner in the trial court. Both counsel agree that said amount is deposited. Shri Jadhavar, learned Advocate requests for allowing withdrawal of the said amount. Prayer accepted. The trial Court is directed to allow the respondent / wife to withdraw the said amount on appropriate identification 9. By consent and at the request of the petitioner, the trial Court is further directed to hear and decide HMP No.31 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible and in any case on/or before 31.12.2011. 10. It is made clear that so far main controversy between the parties is concerned, I have not recorded any opinion on it nor entered into it. Parties are at liberty to adduce evidence before the trial Court. 11. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed in above terms. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl