1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8440 of 2009 Usha Sachin Rawal .. .. Petitioner v/s. Sachin Dinesh Rawal .. .. Respondent A N D Writ Petition No.9346 of 2009 Sachin Dinesh Rawal .. .. Petitioner v/s. Usha Sachin Rawal .. .. Respondent Mr.A.M. Vernekar for Petitioner. Ms.P.M. Bhansali i/by M/s.Ravindra Parekh & Co. for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 12th March, 2010 P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. WP No.9346/09 is NOB. TOB. 1.The husband and the wife have filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions, challenging the order of the 3rd Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra, Mumbai, dated 16.6.2009, granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife. 2 2.The learned Judge has considered the business of the husband. The learned Judge has correctly seen that the husband is in the business of manufacturing corrugated boxes as well as that of printing. The learned Judge has considered the discrepancies in the Affidavit of the husband showing or trying to show that he was carrying on business and yet there were 2/3 workers in his factory. The learned Judge has also seen contradictory statements of the husband that the business belongs to his father and also that the Petitioner is a partner in that business. The learned Judge has considered that the income of Rs.1,13,021/- shown by the husband in the income tax returns of but one year cannot be taken as the true income of the husband. 3.The learned Judge has also considered the income of the wife from her income tax returns. She has income of about Rs.1 Lakh from other sources . She is, therefore, neither in business nor employed but has income presumably from certain investments. Considering the status of both parties, the learned Judge has granted the most reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance based upon the income tax returns and the affidavits of both the parties. 3 4.The wife s contention that the amount should be enhanced pending the Petitions, has to be rejected because it is only at the time of hearing of evidence that the true income of the parties would come to the fore. 5.The husband s contention that the interim maintenance amount has to be reduced also cannot be accepted in view of the contradictory statements of the husband which can be tested only upon his cross-examination. 6.Both the parties shall produce their income tax returns of the last 5 years before the Family Court at the time of final hearing, so that the entire evidence relating to their income can be considered. Save and except these directions, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed and Rule is discharged accordingly. 7.No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)