1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3984/2008 Dr. Rajesh N. Ingole ..vs.. Sou. Geetanjali Yadgire w/o Dr.Rajesh Ingole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri P.Mahhale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Anand Jaiswal, Adv. For sole respondent. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Advocate Mahalle for the petitioner and Advocate Jaiswal for sole respondent. It appears that the present petitioner has undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month for son-Vedant as maintenance. The Court below has recorded reasons and then granted that amount as interim maintenance. It is not either erroneous or perverse, so no interference is called for insofar as this part of order made by the trial Court. By remaining part of order against the petitioner-husband, wife is granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- . The contention of the petitioner is that as the respondent is already a practicing doctor, she has established her practice and the statement made in her application by the respondent that she is a lecturer receiving honourarium of 2 Rs.5,000/- to 8,000/- per month, no interim maintenance can be granted. Advocate Jaiswal has pointed out that what is allowed is only 10% of the monthly income of the petitioner- husband. However, the said amount granted is not after noticing the standard of leaving and after noticing monthly income of the respondent. There is no finding that honourarium earned is not sufficient to maintain her in those standard. The income disclosed on record by the petitioner or respondent-herself are not considered and therefore, it is necessary that the remaining part of order granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-should be set aside. Same is hereby quashed and set aside. The parties to file additional documents on affidavit, if any, by 5th January, 2009 and the Court below to decide the prayer for grant of interim maintenance of respondent by 5th February, 2009. Advocate Mahalle has pointed out that the petitioner has filed application for expeditious disposal of the petition before the trial Court. The said application can be considered after present controversy is resolved by the trial Court. Rule accordingly. JUDGE 3 Andurkar.