ORDER

Petitioner – husband is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Family Court order dated 11.11.2023 whereby an interim monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded in the pending M.C.No.888/2022, in which a decree for dissolution of marriage has been sought for by him.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that his client is drawing only a gross salary of Rs.74,801/ per month and he has compulsive deductions which would render the take home salary to Rs.48,700/-; he has other expenditures to incur as well; the Respondent – wife having been gainfully employed, drawing handsome salary. That being the position, the impugned order could not have been made.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – wife submits that his client draws a gross salary of Rs.39,000/- per month, is true; she has been made to repay a huge loan taken for the benefit of the Petitioner himself and thus much of the salary would go there for repayment. There is a minor son aged four years and he has to be admitted to pre-nursery; there are many other expenses, as well; all these aspects having been duly examined, the learned trial judge of the Court below has made the impugned order which does not merit a deeper examination at the hands of this court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence as under and for the following reasons:

a) The relationship between the parties is not in dispute; they continue to be husband & wife and they have begotten a child who needs to be admitted to pre- nursery. Education is not inexpensive, whatever be the level in the hierarchy of schools. Divorce petition is still pending and respondent too is seeking divorce. There are allegations and counter allegations, is also true.

(b) Admittedly, Petitioner is drawing an attractive salary of Rs.74,801/- per month although to the level of taking home it is reduced to Rs.48,000/-. Therefore, it is not a case of incapacity of the husband to pay. There is a wife and there is a child; this child shortly needs to be admitted to pre-nursery as a matter of course; child is in the custody of the mother, who too is employed, is not in dispute. Education at whatever level is not cheap now-a- days. There is no dispute as to the parentage of the child. Therefore the petitioner cannot shirk his liability to look after wife & the child.

(c) Petitioner has contracted a personal loan after filing of the divorce petition for which the monthly repayment installment is Rs.6,359/-. May be there are other loans too, but all they are contracted by himself with no say of the respondent. The respondent also is gainfully employed and drawing gross salary of Rs.39,000/- which would be obviously subject to certain deductions. This apart, she has to look after the child as well and for that also she has to incur some expenditure. Therefore some consideration has to be shown in this regard. This being said, this Court is of a considered opinion that justice of the case warrants that the Petitioner should pay Rs.18,000/- on or before the 5th day of evey calendar month instead of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by the court below.

(d) Learned judge of the Court below has the advantage of accumulated wisdom in matters like this; having considered all aspects of the matter he has made the subject interim arrangement, which may be varied if the salary of the wife is reasonably upwardly revised, in due course. Ordinarily interim arrangements of the kind do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of this court indulgence after the Writ Court exercising the power under Article 227 vide SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, (2003) 3 SCC 524.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues modifying the impugned order is modified to the effect that the monthly maintenance is scaled down from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eigh