1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1170/2009 (Sou. Neeta Arun Charate Vs. Arun Ramkrishna Charate) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 22 , 2009 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Daryapur, on 6/12/2008, granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife only @ Rs. 2,500/- per month, from the date of the application till the disposal of the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the Court ought to have granted maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel that the Court was not justified in granting maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/- per month when the petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis and required huge amount for medical treatment and also for her maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unable to work as an Assistant Teacher in view of the fact that she was suffering from Tuberculosis. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the trial Court was not justified in granting maintenance only @ Rs. 2,500/- per month, when the Court observed in paragraph 2 of the 2 order that there was no dispute that the respondent was getting monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court failed to grant the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month though the Court observed that the respondent must have been reasonably getting the monthly income of Rs. 1 lakh from the field of the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner had no source of income, the trial Court ought to have granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis and was incapable of securing employment, does not find place in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties in the plaint and the written statement that it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis of Uterus and was incapable of bearing a child. This fact is seriously denied by the petitioner in her written statement. Thus, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have secured an employment due to the fact that she is suffering from Tuberculosis, is totally ill-founded. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner had secured the degree of B.Sc., B.Ed. and is quite capable of seeking employment or taking private tuitions. The fact 3 pertaining to the educational qualification of the petitioner and that she is not able to secure an employment in spite of her educational qualification, is not mentioned in the application under Section 24 of the Act. The trial Court, after taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly granted maintenance @ Rs. 2500/- per month. It is not in dispute, as could be seen from the written statement of the wife, that the respondent has spent substantial amount for the treatment of the wife as she was suffering from Tuberculosis of Uterus and also for pursuing her B.Ed. degree so that she could be employed. Since the petitioner-wife is capable of being employed and since it is not her case that she is unable to secure a job in spite of her best efforts, the maintenance amount cannot be granted to the wife on her mere asking. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial Court had committed any serious error in granting the monthly maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/- to the wife, by considering the take home salary of the respondent at Rs. 8,000/- and odd. Be that as it may, no error much less a jurisdictional error can be found in the impugned order dated 6/11/2008. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP