JUDGMENT:- Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 6-1-2007 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, by which the son of the petitioner and the respondent has been granted maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner and the respondent after having known each other on friendly terms got married on 1-5-1993 and of the said marriage they have a son by name James, born in the year 1988 and who presently studies in Std. lVth.

3. The respondent-wife on or about 13-5-2002 filed a suit for divorce, inter alia, on the ground of ill-treatment under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce and by a separate application dated 23-7-2002 sought maintenance for herself and for the said son. The learned trial Court by the impugned Order dated 6-1-2007 was pleased to allow the said application and order the payment of maintenance, as aforesaid, to be paid on 5th of every succeeding month. As against the said Order the petitioner-husband filed the present writ petition. On 5-4-2007, the impugned Order was stayed, and, on 13-9-2007 this Court after hearing both the parties granted stay as far as the arrears at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month were concerned but refused to grant the stay of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- from the date of the order and granted liberty to the petitioner to make the payment on or about 10-10-2007 and directed further payments to be made pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition on or before the 10th day of the month for which it is due.

4. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with Special Leave to appeal and an order was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29-102007 which was modified on 30-11-2007. The Apex Court noted that the Order of this Court was an interim order by which the petitioner-husband was directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month which would be payable from the date of the order of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not entertain the Special Leave petition which was filed against the interim order and chose not to interfere with the said order of this Court dated 13-9-2007 but ordered that the payment of interim maintenance for the period from 14-9-2007 to 30-9-2007 was extended by four weeks and thereafter the payment was to be made on or before 15th of each succeeding month.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. There is no dispute that the respondent-wife is employed with Gulf Air in Mumbai and her gross salary for the month of May, 2007 was Rs.37,224/- and take home salary of Rs.28,592/-. The petitioner-husband appears to be a well-to do businessman though he has now pleaded that his very existence has been jeopardised by false and malicious allegations levelled by the respondent and by ensuring the retention of his passport which has rendered him jobless and penniless. The learned trial Court held that the son could not be deprived from being given interim maintenance and as the petitioner had admitted that he would like to see that his son got the best of education and best of all facilities, she was inclined to award Rs.50,000/- per month towards the expenses of his education and other necessities. A grievance has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the learned trial Court could not have awarded such a huge amount without there having been any material for the consideration of the trial Court on the basis of which the same could have been awarded. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the material which has been referred to in the order of this Court dated 13-92007 was not there before the learned trial Court and the said material has been considered by this Court, as if it was an Appellate Court and that too without considering the affidavit dated 12-9-2007 filed by the petitioner.

6. Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned Order of the trial Court is without an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document