1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2009 Amit Pandharinath Sarode .. Petitioner Vs Deepa (Deepali) Amit Sarode .. Respondent Mr.Ajay S.Gadkari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Kapse, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 03/08/2009 PC: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Family Court in interim application No.149 of 2008 (Exhibit-8) in Petition No.C-100 of 2007. By this order the respondent-wife’s application under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking interim maintenance for herself and minor son, has been allowed. The petitioner-husband has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month each to the petitioner and their son, towards interim alimony and maintenance from the date of application i.e. from 5th January, 2008. S 2 3. Mr.Gadkari, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness. He submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to hold that the income of the petitioner is Rs.20,000/- per month. He placed a salary certificate dated 22.7.2009 issued by the Interior Consultant and 3-D Visualizer showing his monthly salary as Rs.6,500/-. I have perused the impugned order and other material placed before the court. There is no dispute that the respondent was having his own advertising company which, according to the petitioner, he was forced to close due to loss sustained by him in the business. Except bare words, the petitioner has not produced any material on record to show that he closed the said business. Reliance placed on the income tax returns for the year 2006-2007 of the father of the petitioner showing that the father was paying Rs.5,000/- per month to him out of love and affection is also of no avail to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced his I.T. returns for the reasons best known to him. The salary certificate dated 22.7.2009 shows that he has been working in the firm from April, 2009, and he gets Rs.6,000/- as monthly salary and Rs.500/- towards conveyance. This certificate, in my opinion, is vague since it does not specify whether the petitioner has been working with the Interior 3 Consultant and 3-D Visualizer as full timer or part timer. Looking to the nature of the petitioner’s expertise, as a graphic designer, I am not inclined to accept that his income is not more than Rs.6,500/- per month. The Family Court, after having considered overall facts, was right in observing that the petitioner must be earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. In the circumstances no interference is called for in extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The Family Court, however, shall decide the main petition on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order as also in the impugned order dated 16.1.2009. It is open to the respondent-wife to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner-husband in this court unconditionally. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)