IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2008 Mr.Mohammed Iqbal Ali Hasan Shaha ..Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Shabana Abdulla Burondkar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Hakim Salim A.R. for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th July 2008. P.C.: . The 1st respondent was the wife of the petitioner who applied for maintenance under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Considering the income of the 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of lumpsum amount of maintenance to the 1st respondent. The petitioner was also directed to pay maintenance of Rs.9,000/- for the iddat period. 2. In the revision application filed by the 1st respondent, the lumpsum maintenance amount payable to the 1st respondent has been enhanced by the Sessions Court to Rs.01,00,000/-. It is this order of the : 2 : Sessions Court which is challenged by the petitioner-husband by filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of February 2008. He pointed out that though gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.16,291.10/- per month, the net salary received by him is only Rs.5,870/-. He submitted that the petitioner has complied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate by borrowing the requisite amount. He submitted that only after the petitioner complied with the said order and the 1st respondent came to know about the second marriage of the petitioner, a revision application was belatedly filed before the Sessions Court. He submitted that considering the salary of the petitioner, there was no case made out for granting enhancement. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be stated here that substantial deduction out of the gross salary is on account of repayment of loan. The salary slip itself shows that yearly contribution of the petitioner to provident fund is Rs.17,859/- and income tax payable is Rs.5101/-. Merely because large : 3 : amount is shown by way of deduction on account of repayment of loan, the petitioner cannot take benefit thereof. It must be stated that gross salary after taking into consideration all allowances is Rs.16,291.10/-. The contribution to the provident fund and other items is hardly a sum of Rs.2,200/-. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an employee of the Bombay Port Trust drawing gross salary of Rs.16,292.10/-, the Sessions Court was of the view that lumpsum maintenance payable by the petitioner should be Rs.01,00,000/-. Considering the salary drawn by the petitioner the amount of Rs.01,00,000/- is reasonable and no interference is called for in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition is rejected. However, time of four months is granted to comply with the order of the Sessions Court. For a period of four months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the order of the Sessions Court. (A.S.Oka,J)