1 WP. No. 688/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2010 Sandeep Ghadigaonkar ...Petitioner Vs. Snehlal Ghadigaonkar ...Respondent Mr. R.T. Lalwani Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w. Ms. Sneha Nanandkar i/b. Mr. P.L. Bhujbal for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 7ST DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The order of interim maintenance dated 11th December 2009 is challenged in part. The maintenance for the child of Rs.5000/- is paid. The maintenance to the wife of Rs.30,000/- is not paid at all. The order shows that the maintenance has to be paid from 1st November 2008. The order is passed on 1st December 2009. This is because prior to 1st November 2008 the wife had an income. She was in London. She earned in pound Sterling. No maintenance for that period is granted. 2. In November 2008 she returned to India, She claimed that she was not earning thereafter. Hence an order of maintenance is passed from that date. 2 WP. No. 688/2010 3. After the order was passed in December 2009 it is now unearthed by the husband that the wife serves in Wipro Limited in Pune from 21st January 2010. The husband has filed an application for modification of amount of maintenance. That is pending. 4. Counsel on behalf of the wife fairly suggests that pending that application amount of maintenance from January 2010 may not be paid at present. 5. The husband must pay the entire amount of maintenance to the wife between November 2008 to December 2009. i.e for a period of 13 months. The challenge to that order is misconceived. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. The husband also claims now that the wife was earning even during the period from November 2008 to December 2009. If the husband succeeds in proving any income of the wife in that behalf and obtains a modification order, the amount not payable or recoverable would be adjusted at the time the final maintenance petition is heard on trial. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)