1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7531 OF 2008 Viveik Raghunath Pise .. Petitioner Vs Sou.Manjusha Vivek Pise .. Respondent Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Walvekar i/b S.R.Ganbavale, for the Respondent CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 07/09/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Family Court, disposing of an application under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the impugned order, the petitioner-father is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the minor daughter-Pranjal towards interim maintenance from the date of the application till final disposal of the petition. He has also been directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent. 3. Mr Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, after T 2 taking me through the entire material placed before the court, submitted that after payment of EMI of two flats and LIC installments, what remains in his hand is not sufficient enough to pay the maintenance as per the impugned order. He submitted that the wife is also having almost Rs.80,000/- income per month and she is capable of taking care of the child. Mr Warunjikar then submitted that the petitioner has also a responsibility to maintain his parents, who are above 60 years of age. Lastly, Mr Warunjikar submitted that looking to the demands made by the wife and the expenses shown in her affidavit dated 4.4.2009, it is clear that the respondent-wife is using the child as a tool for extracting money from the petitioner-father. 4. I have perused the order and the entire material placed before the court. There is no dispute that the gross salary of the petitioner is 1,97,501 per month and after deductions, he receives Rs.1,29,194/- per month The Form No.16 produced on record shows that the deductions are towards Provident Fund, LIC installments and Housing loan. After the deductions, he gets more than rupees One lac per month. Keeping that in view and considering the needs of the daughter, in my opinion, the interim maintenance, directed to be paid by the impugned order, 3 is not on the higher side at all. The father of the petitioner is a retired Government servant who gets pension. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the order does not deserve interference by this court. Hence, the writ petition fails and dismissed as such. The Family Court shall, however, decide the main petition uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order so also in this order. It is open to the parties to place the entire material/evidence before the Family Court in order to prove their claim. It is needless to state that the Family Court shall consider the same and decide the claim of maintenance on merits in accordance with law. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)