A practicing advocate must timely leverage legal remedies; neglecting legal processes undermines appeals regarding maintenance orders.

5. The petitioner would submit that the aforesaid order was passed by the In-charge Court. The regular Court was on leave on the given date. The matter was hurriedly taken up before the In- charge Court by 4.30 p.m. The Court concerned passed an order merely relying on the averments in the application. The respondent-wife did not place on record any evidence in support of her contentions as regards the petitioner’s financial status. The petitioner would further submit that in those days, his monthly income was very meager. Even both the petitioner and respondent-wife left the residence of petitioner’s father and started residing in a premises taken on rent. The amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of the applicants, was very excessive and grossly inconsistent with the income of petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application under Section 25 (2) of PWDVA for modification of the order dated 08/03/2019. Along with the said application, he placed on record his Income- tax Returns for the relevant years. According to the petitioner, in the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Anita w/o. Anand Tambe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 1807, it has been observed that the Income-tax Returns are the best evidence in proof of income. The quantum of maintenance should be 1/3rd of total income. The petitioner would further submit that the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject his application for modification vide order dated 02/02/2021. According to him, it was in fact a case of change in the circumstances calling for modification of the order dated 08/03/2019. The Income-tax Returns of petitioner were not before the Court while the order granting interim maintenance was passed. The petitioner would further submit that he again moved an application Exhibit-25 for the similar relief under Section 25 (2) of PWDVA. The said application was moved mainly on the ground that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021)2 Supreme Court Cases 324 has given guidelines as regards grant of maintenance. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Court concerned to comply with the directions in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra) and pass the order on his application Exhibit-25. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 24/12/2021 rejected the said application with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought to have followed the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra).

6. The petitioner took this Court to the averments in his petition, affidavit-in reply and sur-rejoinder. He would further submit that he purchased a Bolero Car in 2022. The Court is concerned with the financial status of petitioner in the year 2017, when the orders granting interim maintenance and residence were passed. The petitioner also availed a loan from the bank for purchase of a vehicle. The petitioner would further submit that he was ready and willing to maintain his wife and children. He is also ready to pay some amount towards their maintenance, but the amount awarded under the order impugned herein, is exorbitant and beyond his means to pay. The learned Advocate ultimately urged for allowing the petition with direction to the learned Magistrate to decide his application for modification of the order dated 08/03/2019 on its own merits, after affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

7. The learned Advocate for respondent-wife also took this Court through her affidavit-in-reply to ultimately urge for dismissal of the petition.

8. Considered the submissions advanced.