1 wp3268-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2011 Vaman Madhukar Narekar ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.Sandeep R. Karnik for the petitioner . CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioner has filed petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan i.e. Marriage Petition No.523 of 2010. The respondent herein filed application for maintenance for herself and minor son Harshal on 16.11.2010 being application at Exhibit 12. The learned Senior Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge) decided the said application by order dated 5.3.2011. The petitioner is ordered to pay to the 2 wp3268-11.sxw respondent in all a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her maintenance and for maintenance and education of son Harshal from 16.10.2010 till disposal of the main petition. This order dated 5.3.2011 is challenged by this Writ Petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the stage of admission. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is willing to pay maintenance . However this amount of maintenance should be restricted to Rs.4000/- per month. It is seen that the learned trial Judge has considered the submission of the petitioner and has rejected the same by treating that the said amount of Rs.4000/- will be inadequate. In the impugned order there is a reference that the respondent and the minor son are residing in the very house in which the petitioner is residing. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is supplying to the respondent grocery and day to day needs for maintenance. Now that the respondent has made formal application for maintenance and an order has been passed against the petitioner if the petitioner pays to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3 wp3268-11.sxw 10,000/- per month he would not be required to spend any more amount on day to day requirements of the respondent and the minor son as the learned trial judge has quantified the need of the respondent and the minor child in terms of money at RS.10,000/-. In such a situation, if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent, the respondent cannot expect from the petitioner monies to deal with her needs. Ofcourse, the sum of Rs.10,000/- has been fixed by the learned trial Judge keeping in view that the present house where respondent is staying shall be the place where the respondent shall continue to get the shelter. 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge has fixed a proper amount of maintenance to be awarded to respondent and therefore no interference is required in the impugned order. 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to dismiss the petition at the stage of admission. Hence the order: 4 wp3268-11.sxw ORDER i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ii) There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]