- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.15512 OF 2019

Ajinath S/o Raosaheb Raut

Petitioner

Versus

Geeta w/o Ajinath Raut

Respondent

Mr. Shaikh Asraf Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.

DATE : 19^th December, 2019.

PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated

01.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmednagar, vide

which, application Exhibit-5 fled by the wife seeking interim

maintenance in Petition A No. 211/2018, has been partly allowed and

the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the

respondent-wife as maintenance.

2.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously

criticised the impugned order. He submits that the wife conducts

tuition classes and thus, she can feed herself. The petitioner is a

- 2 -

primary teacher in a school. His salary is Rs. 40,000/- per month.

It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be

modifed.

3.

After considering the submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner, I have gone through the judgment

delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kalyan Dey

Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 Supreme

Court Cases 200, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that the

dignity and the life style of the wife is to be protected and for which,

25% of the earnings of the husband should be paid as maintenance.

4.

There is no dispute that the salary of the petitioner as on

date is more than Rs. 50,000/-. Even before the trial Court, it was

admitted that he was drawing Rs. 40,000/- per month. His salary

certifcate for March 2019 indicates that he earns a gross amount of

Rs. 61,403/- and his net pay after deductions is Rs. 56,939/-.

5.

Considering the above and the law laid down in the

matter of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (Supra), I do not fnd that the

impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous as

- 3 -

the amount granted is less than 25% of the gross earnings of the

petitioner. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Ravindra V.Ghuge

Judge

dyb