The court upheld the principle of providing interim maintenance based on the financial means of the parties involved, pending the final decision on the maintenance petition.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. R. S. Kurekar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K. Y. Mandape, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Nagpur on application (Exh.6) in Petition No. E414/2019, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.10, 000.00 per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance from the date of application i.e. 6/8/2019.

3. The respondent is the father of the petitioner. Perusal of the pleadings would show that this litigation is the most unfortunate litigation considering the relationship. The mother of the petitioner and the wife of the respondent has filed an affidavit and stated that she is not claiming any maintenance from the petitioner. She has also stated that her husband/respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner.

4. The main petition filed by the respondent for maintenance as per the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the Family Court. During pendency of this petition, the respondent applied for interim maintenance @ Rs.20, 000.00 per month. According to him, he has no source of income. He is unable to maintain himself. His son/petitioner has sufficient means to provide him maintenance. It is alleged by the respondent in the said petition that the petitioner though financially well of, has failed and neglected to maintain him.

5. The petitioner has filed reply and opposed the application for interim maintenance. The parties were directed by the learned Judge of the Family Court to file their respective statement of assets and liabilities. The parties have complied the said order.

6. Learned Judge of the Family Court on bestowing thoughtful consideration to the material placed on record and considering the stage of the matter, found the respondent entitled to get the interim maintenance. Learned Judge quantified the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10, 000.00 per month.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that for the purpose of quantifying interim maintenance, the learned Judge has taken into consideration the annual income of the petitioner reflected from Income Tax Returns. Learned advocate submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Income Tax Returns can be made the basis for quantifying maintenance, the interim maintenance quantified by the learned Judge of the Family Court is excessive and exorbitant. Learned advocate submitted that the mother of the petitioner has filed an affidavit and made a categorical statement that the petitioner is spending for satisfying the day to day needs of the respondent as well as her needs. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that interim maintenance as quantified by the learned Judge is not just and proper.

8. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent is 80 years old. Learned advocate submitted that the respondent has no source of income and therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his father. Learned advocate submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned in this petition. Learned advocate submitted that the interim maintenance quantified by the learned Judge is just, proper and reasonable.

9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. There is hardly any dispute about the relationship. The parties are blaming each other for grabbing the money after sell of the property. It is also stated by the petitioner in his reply before the Family Court that the respondent has received near about Rs.50.00 lakhs. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Judge, without dwelling deep on merits of the matter, on the basis of prima facie material on record, has quantified the interim maintenance.

10. On going through the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, I am of t