ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4008 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4008 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4008 OF 2008 Mr.Umesh Ganesh Pardeshi ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Jatindra Umesh Pardeshi ...Respondent. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, for the Petitioner. Ms.Gunjal Shah i/by Mr.S.A.Sawant for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner-husband filed the proceedings before the Family Court, at Pune against the Respondent for decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Respondent wife in this Proceeding filed an application Exhibit 10 for maintenance to herself and to the minor child. The Family Court No.1, Pune after hearing both the sides, refused to grant the maintenance to the Respondent wife however maintenance @ Rs.5000/- p.m. was granted for the minor son. The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred another application below Exhibit 15, seeking temporary custody of minor child and also for modification of above order granting the maintenance of Rs.5000/- to minor child. This application came to ( 2 ) be rejected by the Family Court by its order dated 04/04/2008. This order is being challenged in the present petition. 2. As far as the custody of minor child is concerned, the family court recorded the findings that the age of the child is hardly 5 years and admittedly since beginning the child is staying with mother. It is also observed by the family court that the petitioner never met the child since last two years prior to the impugned order and therefore, concluded that it will not be in the interest of the child to transfer his custody from mother to father. Accordingly, the prayer for interim custody came to be rejected. I find no error and perversity in the approach adopted by the family Court. 3. So far as the amount of maintenance to the minor child is concerned, the Family Court in earlier order held that the Petitioner previously was working as a Production Manager and however, he left the job and doing independent business in the name S.P.enterprises and earn Rs.40,000/- p.m. and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the minor child. This order was not modified asmuch as the Petitioner could ( 3 ) not bring before the family court any new facts, to enable the family court to review its earlier order. Mr.Vanarase the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has no concern with the said business, viz. S.P.Enterprises and in fact this business is being run by his real brother. However, it cannot be ignored that the Petitioner is qualified person. Initially he is working as a Production Manager, however, he has left this job. It can safely by assumed that the qualified person like the Petitioner will not leave the job unless and until he engaged in any other business or got new job. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court. 4. Mr.Vanarase, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that at least, Petitioner be given access to the minor child. However, this prayer for first time is made in this Court. The Petitioner can apply to the family Court in the pending proceedings in this regard. 5. In view of above, the present Petition is dismissed. ( 4 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)