1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2543 OF 2009 Shabnam S. Badri ...Petitioner. v. Shabbir Badri & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms. Lorna Phadke, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr. Shoaib I. Memon, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 9, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is wife of the respondent no.1. She has filed application for maintenance before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.1 lac for herself and at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- for each of the two children. The respondent showed his inability and submitted his income tax returns showing his taxable income to be Rs.43,992/- for the year 2007-08 and Rs.85,782/- for the year 2008-09. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a teacher in pre- primary school. The trial Court held that her salary must be around Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month because she had not disclosed her salary in 2 the application. Taking into consideration the material on record, the learned Judge , Family Court refused maintenance to the petitioner and directed respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the child . This is interim order while main petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is pending before the Family Court. Present writ petition is filed challenging that interim order. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.5,000/- but this fact is not disclosed in her petition and, therefore, the trial Court held that her salary may be around Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month. As she is living in the house belonging to her father which according to the respondent, has come to her share. Anyway she is not entitled to pay any rent for residential accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that tuition fees of each of two children to be paid to the school is Rs. 5,000/- per month and besides that there are several other expenses including expenses on private tuitions. However, the copies of the receipts from the school reveal that for period from December, 2008 to May, 2009, i.e., for the six months, tuition and the term fee was Rs. 11,725/- for one child and Rs.10,325/- for another child. Thus, actual expenditure on the school fee, etc. for each child is less than Rs.2,000/- 3 She also contended that according to the statement of respondent in the affidavit , he was spending Rs.2 lacs per month on himself. Admittedly, respondent is working on contract basis in merchant navy and admittedly, most of the times during the year, he is required to be either on ship or on the ports of different countries. In his affidavit, he stated that he has to spend Rs.2 lacs per month in view of the international standard of expenditure. Naturally when he is abroad or on the ship, he has to spend from his wages as per the standards of those countries and not as per the Indian standard . There is no material on record to show that after meeting necessary expenses for his own maintenance, he has income of Rs.1 or 2 lacs per month as contended by the petitioner. The trial Court granted Rs.5,000/- per month for each of the child. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the trial Court is perverse or totally against the record. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order will not affect final decision in the petition for maintenance, which is still pending before the Family Court. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 4