JYOTIBEN SAMIR PAWAR Vs. SAMIR BHASKAR RAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Jyotiben Samir Pawar, petitioner appellant-original plaintiff, has filed this Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 7-9-2000 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 241 of 2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the application and direct Shri Samir Bhaskar Rao Pawar, defendant husband to pay Rs. 1,.500.00 per month as an interim maintenance to plaintiff from the date of suit till final disposal of the suit and thereby modified the earlier order dated 23-3-2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to fix Rs. 3,000.00 as maintenance which was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision application are as under :-

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the applicant- wife has filed this revision application before this Court on several grounds. Smt. Jyotiben Samirbhai Pawar, party-in-person, herself, argued the matter and stated that the learned Judge has seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that the income of the husband is Rs. 8,000.00 per month. According to her, the respondent-husband has a shop in Vadodara which is given on rent and the respondent-husband is receiving Rs. 7,000.00 as monthly rent from the said shop. She has also stated that the respondent-husband is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Daylight Industries, factory situated at G.I.D.C., Savli, District Vadodara, valued at Rs. 30 lakhs and he received Rs. 20,000.00 per month. He is also carrying on business of running taxi one at Vadodara and another at Anand by which he is earning Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 12,000.00 per month by hiring the same. He also received Rs. 30,000.00 per month by giving a Xerox machine on hire. He is also carrying on another business of commission and there also he earned Rs. 12,000.00 per month. So in all, according to the plaintiff party-in-person, about Rs. 56,000.00 is earned by the respondent-husband. Therefore, the learned Judge by assessing monthly income of the respondent- husband at Rs. 8,000.00 has grossly undervalued the income of the defendant- husband.