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.2929 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2929 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2929 OF 2008 Bhawarlal L. Soni ..Petitioner. V/s. Gayatri B. Soni ..Respondent. Ms.Merlyn Monterio for petitioner. Mr.Y.E.Mooman for respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. In a matrimonial petition filed by the petitioner-husband seeking divorce, the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent-wife by an order dated 3rd January, 2008 directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2,500/- per month each to the children from the date of the presentation of the application i.e. from 13/8/2007 till the disposal of the petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-wife has been continuously harassing the petitioner and his family members by initiating - = : 2 : = - proceedings and in some criminal complaints the family members of the petitioner were arrested and released on bail. It is contended that the petitioner is maintaining his wife and children by providing food, shelter and clothing and in support of the above contention the petitioner has produced necessary bills which have not been considered by the Family Court. It is further contended that the respondent-wife is staying in the premises belonging to the father of the petitioner and since the petitioner is incurring all the expenses for maintaining the respondents, the Family Court is not justified in awarding additional maintenance. It is further contended that the amount of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is unreasonable and the petitioner is unable to bear the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 3. In the impugned order, the Family Court has given a categorical finding that the petitioner- husband has not specifically denied that he is carrying jewellery business jointly in the joint family concerns like Laxmichand Tulsiram Son (HUF), shop in the name of Hari Om Jewellers at Bhandup and a shop at Dhanaji Street. The inference drawn by the Family Court that the petitioner is earning substantially from the aforesaid business cannot be - = : 3 : = - faulted. The fact that the petitioner has borne some of the expenses of the respondents, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance. In my opinion, the order passed by the Family Court in directing the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the children is just and proper and the same does not deserve to be interfered with. I see no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)