IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3550 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3550 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3550 OF 2008 Shridhar Chandrakant Walawalkar ..Petitioner. V/s. AnupamaShridhar Walawalkar ..Respondent. Mr.Aswhin Shete i/b. M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar for petitioner. Mrs.Krishna Sharma for respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. By the said order, learned Judge of the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife towards interim alimony from 9/5/2007 till the disposal of the petition filed in the Family Court. 2. The main argument of the petitioner is that the respondent-wife who is a B.A. graduate is capable of taking employment and earn livelihood. As the respondent-wife has not made any attempt to - = : 2 : = - earn livelihood, the petitioner cannot be made to pay for her maintenance. It is further contended that the learned Judge of the Family Court was in error in holding that in India, it is not easy for the ladies to get jobs. It is further contended that directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- is too harsh because out of the salary amount of Rs.11,400/- earned by the petitioner as a Law Clerk, the petitioner was required to spend substantial amount on the medical treatment of his father. However, Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that during the pendency of the present petition, the father of the petitioner has died. 3. I do not find any merit in the above contention, because the fact that the respondent-wife is a graduate, by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the maintenance awarded is excessive. It is neither the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent-wife was offered any job in the past which she declined, nor it is the case of the Petitioner that any job is presently available to the Respondent-wife. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Family Court. - = : 3 : = - 4. The reliance placed in the decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of Smt.Mamata Jaiswal V/s. Rajesh Jainswal reported in II (2000) D.M.C. 170 has no relevance to the facts of the present case, because in that case there was dispute as to whether she was working or not, whereas, in the present case, admittedly the Respondent - wife is not working. Moreover, with the demise of the father of the Petitioner, the medical expenditure has also came to a nought. 5. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the petition. 6. Petition dismissed. No costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)