WP 4058/10 1 SSK/12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4058 OF 2010 Nimesh Suresh Gosalia ....Petitioner Versus Manisha Nimesh Gosalia ...Respondent Mr. V. R. Sutrale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b. Smt. Shilpa A. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Sutrale and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent respectively. 2. The petition arises out of an order dated 16th November, 2009 passed by the Family Court No.4, Mumbai, granting an interim alimony @ Rs.9,000/- p.m. to the Respondent-wife from the date of presentation of the petition till disposal of the same. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 9th July, 2008. It is the case of the Respondent-Wife that she was driven out of the matrimonial house by the Petitioner on 24th September, 2008 and thereafter, she is staying separately. The Respondent – Wife filed the proceedings under section WP 4058/10 2 SSK/12 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act against the Petitioner for maintenance and during the pendency of this proceeding, an application at exhibit “6” was filed for interim maintenance. By the impugned order as stated above, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- p.m. towards interim alimony to the Respondent -Wife. 3. The Petitioner is an Electronic Engineer and has master’s degree in business administration. There is no dispute that previously he was serving with HDFC Bank as “Deputy Manager” and was drawing a salary approximately of Rs.30,000/- p.m.. The Petitioner contends that in view of the complaint made by the Respondent -Wife to the HDFC Bank, he was compelled to resign from service on 17th June, 2009 and at present he is jobless and has no income as such. Looking at the qualification of the Petitioner, it is difficult to digest that the Petitioner will resign from service with HDFC Bank unless he gets some better offer. The Petitioner also contends that Respondent was serving for the period from May, 2002 to August, 2005 and from December, 2008 to April, 2009. So far as period from May, 2002 to August, 2005 is concerned, it cannot be taken into consideration as same is prior to the marriage. During the period from December, 2008 to April, 2009, the Respondent was serving with Cipla as “Medical Transcriptionist” on daily wages basis. The WP 4058/10 3 SSK/12 Respondent-Wife during this period earned approximately an amount of Rs.20,000/-. However, the paltry income earned by the Respondent especially after separation/neglect of the Petitioner to maintain her cannot be termed as her income. Admittedly, at present, the Respondent has no source of income. The Family Court after hearing the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the amount of Rs.9,000/- will be reasonable amount towards maintenance. I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to enable me to exercise the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. However, in the interest of justice, the Family Court is directed to hear and dispose of Respondent’s Petition No.C-166 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. 5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the civil application nos. 1731 and 1732 of 2010 will not survive for consideration and same are disposed of, as such. (R. V. MORE, J.)