bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7798 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7798 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7798 OF 2007 Nitin Bhausaheb Bankar ... Petitioner v/s Jotsna Nitin Bankar ... Respondent Mr.R.M.Hardas i/by P.N.Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Agrawal for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order of the Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Nashik, dated 27.8.2007. By this order the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application i.e. from 23.6.2006. An amount of Rs.3,000/- has also been directed to be paid towards expenses of the proceedings. When this petition came up for admission on 23.11.2007, the petitioner was directed to deposit certain amounts before the Trial Court. The petitioner has accordingly deposited the amount of 2 Rs.8,000/- before the Trial Court. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he does not earn a salary which is sufficient in order to pay Rs.2000/- as maintenance to the respondent. It is further contended that the gross salary which he earns is about Rs.8000/-, out of which deductions at source are around Rs.5000/-, as a result of which he receives only Rs.2,800/- in hand each month. It is submitted that the petitioner has to support his old parents and, therefore, it is impossible for him to pay the amount as directed by the Court. A submission is also made that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, interim maintenance cannot be awarded for the child and therefore the impugned order is required to be set aside. 3. In my opinion, the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner contends that he does not have sufficient means to pay the amount of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife since he earns only an amount of Rs.2,820/- as a net pay. Despite this, after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner requested the H.D.F.C. Ltd. from which he had obtained a housing loan, that the EMI should be increased to Rs.5000/- per month instead of 3 Rs.3,908/-, which he was paying earlier. The malafides on the part of the petitioner are apparent. It is only to deny the respondent any amount that he has requested the H.D.F.C. Ltd. to increase the EMI. In the case of Sou. Sou. Sou. Suman Narayan Niphade & anr. v/s Narayan Sitaram Suman Narayan Niphade & anr. v/s Narayan Sitaram Suman Narayan Niphade & anr. v/s Narayan Sitaram Niphade Niphade Niphade & anr., reported in 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 243, & anr., reported in 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 243, & anr., reported in 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 243, the Supreme Court considered a case for enhanced maintenance under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court has observed that, merely because the husband has incurred liabilities to pay instalments of loans obtained by him, there was no reason why the wife and minor child should be denied maintenance which is just sufficient for keeping the body and soul together. The same principles will apply to a claim for maintenance filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. In the present case also, as seen from the salary slips annexed to the petition, around Rs.7,500/- are spent by the petitioner for payment of loans. These deductions made from the salary of the petitioner will not disentitle the respondent from receiving maintenance as awarded. 5. The submission of the learned counsel that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act a minor child 4 cannot be paid any maintenance, is not applicable to the present case. The impugned order directs payment of maintenance only to the wife and not to the minor child. The contention of the petitioner is without merit. 6. Writ petition rejected. 7. The petitioner shall pay the entire amount awarded within four weeks from today.