JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 01.09.2018 passed below Exh. 14 in Family Suit No. 199 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara. By the said application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent herein had prayed for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.30,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for minor son, pending the captioned suit, which came to be partly allowed and the learned Family Judge granted interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.20,000/- for the respondent – wife and Rs.10,000/- for minor son. Civil Application No. 1 of 2021 has been filed for stay of the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.09.2018.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the learned Family Judge has committed a grave error in passing such order inasmuch as, he has failed to take into consideration the material aspect of the matter viz. the petitioner – husband is already paying a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent wife and son and is paying regularly. It is further submitted that the learned Family Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioners has responsibility of her widowed mother, her sister who is deserted by her husband and his nephew as well as of unemployed brother and have to maintain them and in the circumstances, granting such a huge amount would make it difficult for the petitioner to survive.

3.2 The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Family Judge has failed to consider the aspect that the father of the petitioner who has died quite before, had received a sum of Rs.11 lakh only towards Provident Fund and his widowed mother is getting a petty amount of Rs.1,986/- p.m. towards pension and in the circumstances, it is very difficult for the petitioner to maintain his family, moreso when, his mother is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure and is on regular medication.

3.3 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that although efforts have been made to settle the matter, all went in vain. Further, the respondent is staying with her father, who is working with IOCL and earning handsome amount of Rs.1.5 lakh p.m. and in the circumstances, the learned Family Judge ought to have considered such an aspect of the matter and would have granted maintenance accordingly. Further, drawing attention to the copies of pay-slips of the petitioner, it is submitted that responsibilities of the petitioner weigh more than the earnings of the petitioners.

3.4 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow this petition and to set aside the impugned order.

4. As against this, learned advocate Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent, while heavily opposing this writ petition, submitted that the learned Family Judge has committed no error which requires interference at the hands of this Court. She submitted that the respondent – wife is having no means to survive and is at the mercy of her father and the minor son is also residing with her and in the circumstances, the maintenance granted by the learned Family Judge being just and proper, this petition merits no consideration.

4.2 Inviting attention to the pay-slips of the petitioners, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is earning quite handsome amount and accordingly, no modification is required to be done in the impugned order.

4.3 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that this petition may be dismissed.

5. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the averments made in the petition so also, considering the material on