1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7050 OF 2009 Rajkumar Ramraj Yadav Petitioner versus Mrs.Pramila Rajkumar Yadav Respondent Mr.H.T.Pawar for petitioner. Ms.P.J.Das for respondent. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 12th July 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. The respondent-wife filed proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said proceedings, an application under section 24 of the said Act came to be filed for grant of interim maintenance. The learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to pay to the wife a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. This order is impugned in the present writ petition. 2. It is the case of respondent that the petitioner is doing the milk business. The stand of the petitioner on the contrary is that the business of milk belongs to his mother and for that purpose he relied upon the certificate issued under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner was 2 expired in the year 2003 and after his death the business of dairy was transferred in the name of his mother and the petitioner helps his mother in the said business. Therefore, he has no direct income and the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court is on a higher side. 3. I find no substance in the submission of the petitioner in view of the fact that an application came to be made on 13th December 2007 to the authorities under Shops Act i.e. subsequent to the filing of Hindu Marriage Petition No.356 of 2007 by the respondent, for change of name of owner. I find that the paper entry of transfer of business in the name of petitioner's mother was made to avoid the responsibility to pay the interim maintenance amount to the respondent. The petitioner as a son of his deceased father is entitled to inherit the milk business. 4. The Family Court after hearing both the sides has come to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner must be about Rs.25,000/- per month and thereafter looking into the needs of the respondent and present cost of living fixed the interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order being an interlocutory order, does not warrant any interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)