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.6682 OF 2007 PETITION NO.6682 OF 2007 PETITION NO.6682 OF 2007 Mr.Gopal K.Shah ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Shubhangi Chavan i/by Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.S.Cardozo, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.R.Bubna for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 22nd July, 2008 : 22nd July, 2008 : 22nd July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the impugned order, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Thane allowed the Respondent No.2’s Application for interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Petitioner is directed to pay an interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the Respondent No.2 from the date of application. 3. The learned trial court relied upon the document produced by the Respondent No.2 at Exhibit 12. One of ( 2 ) the document is the bio-data of Petitioner given to the Respondent No.2’s family before fixing the marriage. The Bio-data discloses that the Petitioner runs business in the name and style Jai Ambe Store, Super Market at Kalyan as well as he is supplier of electrical items in H.P.C.L.Mumbai, Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath and Century Rayon, Kalyan etc. In addition to above, one business in the name of Shubham Enterprises is being run by the Petitioner’s family. Though the petitioner’s contention is that the same is being run by the mother, however it is admitted that the Petitioner’s mother is housewife. 4. Taking over all view of the matter, the trial Court fixed the maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent No.2 from the date of the application. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and after going through the Petition, I do not find any illegality or error in the approach adopted by the learned trial court. In my view, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( 3 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)