1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8133 of 2008 Mrs.Indu Mohan Kumar .. .. Petitioner v/s. Mohan Kumar .. .. Respondent Mr.Mohan Jayakar with Ms.Swati Agarwal i/by M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar for Petitioner. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty with Ms.Ritu K. Joshi for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 5th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Vth Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra, dated 28.8.2008, declining to grant any interim maintenance to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made an Application for interim maintenance on 6.10.2007. The said Application shows the Petitioner s monthly income as well as the monthly income of the Respondent. It requires the Petitioner to be maintained as per the income, status and standard of the Respondent. The Petitioner also claimed litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- from the Respondent. In paragraph 5 of her Application for interim maintenance, the Petitioner stated that she 2 would produce all the necessary documents and other details of her expenses in support of her claim for maintenance. She requires the Respondent to produce his assets and investments. She prays for the relief of interim maintenance to the extent of Rs.5 Lakhs per month and litigation costs of Rs.50,000/-. 2.In her brief concise almost cryptic Application, she relied upon the documents, but produced none. The impugned order shows that the Petitioner did not even produce her salary certificate. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the salary certificate was produced in a compilation. It is conceded that no other documents were produced. 3.The Petitioner has now made out a statement of her expenses. Even at present, the various expenses are not substantiated by documentary evidence to wit the Petitioner claims 5,000/- AED by way of rent and 2,000/- AED by way of car insurance. Neither the rent receipt nor the insurance policy is produced. The other expenses may not require production of documentary evidence, but would have to be considered in accordance with any prima facie evidence that the Petitioner would show. None of that is also produced. Since these documents were not produced or relied upon before the trial Court, the Petitioner cannot rely upon 3 any further documents in this Writ Petition, challenging the impugned order. 4.The impugned order considers the income of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. For want of any other documentary evidence, it concludes that no further interim maintenance is payable. Under the circumstances, as no documentary evidence to even prima facie show further expenses is produced, the order cannot be challenged. The Petitioner s Writ Petition is seen to have no merit. 5.However, the Petitioner does earn far less than her husband. The Petitioner would be entitled to permanent alimony considering not only the husband s income but also his assets and investments. It would be for the Petitioner to pursue her defence in the Divorce Petition expeditiously. 6.Mr.Jayakar on her behalf fairly concedes that the Petitioner must and will co-operate for an expeditious disposal of the Divorce Petition. Mr.Shetty on behalf of the Respondent states that he would also like the Petition to be expeditiously disposed of. An Affidavit of examination-in-chief of the Respondent herein as the Petitioner in the Divorce Petition is filed. He would be required to be cross-examined. Both Counsel agree 4 that the cross-examination be conducted by a Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petitioner would be required to come to Mumbai from Dubai for that purpose. The Respondent agrees to pay the Petitioner the travelling expenses actually incurred as well as boarding and lodging expenses actually incurred. 7.By consent of the Counsel of the Petitioner and the Respondent, Ms.Jerestin M. Sidhwa, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner. The parties agree to go on for cross-examination before the Commissioner from day to day. 8.The parties agree to fix the date for recording of the cross-examination of all the parties and their witnesses by the Commissioner in the Family Court on the next date of hearing. 9.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)