1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1243 of 2009 Mr.Joslyn Michael Mendes .. .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs.Diana Mendes @ Diana Quadros .. Respondent Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar Mrs.Shilpa Joshi i/by Petitioner. Mrs.Taubon F. Irani for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 15th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard the learned Advocates for both sides. 2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.The Petitioner-husband has challenged the maintenance amount granted by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Bandra on 20.11.2008. The husband as well as the wife are in service. The husband has been serving on Merchant ships as Security Officer. The wife serves as a Telephone Operator. The wife earns about Rs. 25,000/- per month. She has not been granted any interim maintenance. The parties have a son. He is in Std.X. The parties separated within a couple of years 2 of their marriage when the son was nearly one year old. The wife had not applied and the husband had not given any maintenance for the son. It is only because the expenses of education became much steeper that the wife applied for the husband s input in the maintenance of their son. 4.The husband s income from whatever source or sources is the only thing which is disputed and is required to be considered. He appears to be a rolling stone. He has shown 3 to 4 employments taken and left by him for various reasons with which, in this Writ Petition for interim maintenance, the Court would not be much concern. His first income is sought to be shown in a certificate issued by the Captain of Barber Ship Management. The certificate shows that he was drawing monthly wages of USD 650/- in July 2007. There have been various employments of the Petitioner before this which may not be of much concern. The later employment in Royal Palm India Pvt. Ltd. is reflected in one pay slip of June 2009 produced by the Petitioner. Hence the Petitioner has shown one certificate of 2007 and one salary slip of 2009 for two of the various jobs held by him. The latest employment is shown in the employment letter dated 22.8.2009. His Advocate Mr.Khandeparkar, on taking instructions from the Advocate on record, states that the original letter 3 scanned by him was e-mailed by him to his Advocate, copy of which print-out has been produced. This letter shows a monthly remuneration in Dubai of AED 1650 and mobile allowances of AED 50. 5.The husband claims that he earns in the region of Rs. 17,000/- to Rs.20,000/- each month. 6.To show his earnings specially in Royal Palms, he has produced an extract of a Bank Account of Citizens Co- operative Bank, Bandra Branch to the account, is from February 2006 to September 2009. It covers most of the relevant period, though not fully. 7.The account is interesting. It shows various entries of deposits through Bank being Union Bank, Bank of India, State Bank, etc. This shows that certain inter- bank transfers have been effected which have been credited to his Bank Account. 8.The account further shows various debit entries made by self. This could be made either across the counter on a bearer cheque or into another account of the husband in the same Bank and Branch. Whatever that be, entries of ATM are not reflected. Cheque entries in favour of self are shown. There are many such entries. 4 9.There are two entries of Rs.49,900/- made in cash. This would reflect amounts received by him from Merchant Shipping. There are investments made in ICICI Prudential, which is a mutual fund, of Rs.50,000/- by two entries of Rs.25,000/- each. There are various cash entries of deposits credited to his account, several thousands at a time. There is a credit entry from Life Insurance Corporation which reflects another investment of the husband. 10.There are certain entries of credit from one Andrea Pinto, who is stated to be his friend. Similarly there are some entries in favour of Julius Gonsalves, reflected in his accounts. Julius Gonsalves is his Constituted Attorney to whom various loans have been granted are shown debited to his account. The entries showing the income from Royal Palms is reflected only by two entries in July and August 2009, purportedly showing his income in those months. The net income in those two months is Rs.16,000/- to Rs.17,000/-. Nevertheless immediately thereafter two entries in favour of G.H. Sharma of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.4,600/- are shown debited to his account and similarly two further entries of Rs.45,500/- and Rs.8,600/- given to Julius Gonsalves are also debited to his account. G.H. Sharma is stated to be the broker for giving the husband the present job in Dubai. The entry of Rs.45,500/- is 5 stated to be the entry relating to the arrears of pa ment of interim maintenance. 11.Neither the Family Court nor this Court is required to make arithmetical calculation as an Accountant of the precise amounts earned by the husband and the wife which have to be utilized for payment of expenses of their only child. The Court is to prima facie see whether the wife earns income and whether that is sufficient for her needs without the husband s income for her maintenance. In this case, that exercise is also ruled out because the wife has, at present, not claimed maintenance. For seeing the maintenance of the child, bona fide earnings and expenses of the father would require to be seen only to understand the priority he gives to the upkeep of his only child. 12.The husband, who claims to have taken and given up number of jobs and has shown his latest income in the letter of employment. He is shown to be earning several diverse amounts from time to time, several of which are earned in cash. This is the usual mode of earning of persons on Merchant ships. The husband is also seen to have taken loans and given loans to certain friends. The husband has received the amounts by way of transmission from 3 Banks. The husband is seen to have 6 invested some amounts in LIC and ICICI Prudential. The particulars of the extent of expenses as well as investments need not be gone into. Suffice to say that the husband does not live within the means as would be offered to a man who earns only about Rs.20,000/- or less per month. 13.Consequently, on behalf of the wife, my attention has been drawn to the effect that there is no statement by the wife that he has no other Bank Account or he has no income other than from only the salary shown by him. 14.A detailed accounting may be made upon the evidence led by the parties at the time the permanent maintenance for the wife and the child is considered. At present, it has to be only seen whether the amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Family Court is reasonable or perverse. I find that it is reasonable. 15.Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the husband is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)