DHARMENDRABHAI PITAMBERBHAI PARMAR Vs. KAUSHALYABEN DHAMENDRABHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged an order dated 23. 10. 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara. By the impugned order the petitioner is directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month to the respondent wife. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged as Talati-Cum-Manatri. At the relevant time, his net income was believed to be Rs. 4615/- per month. Though it is contended by the petitioner that respondent is engaged as teacher and earning Rs. 1500/- per month but there is nothing on record to establish this. Reply filed by the respondent also controverts this allegation.

(2.) UNDER the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the oral instructions of the counsel for the respondent, the issues had been resolved between the parties and they had started residing together. If that be so, this order shall have no effect. Subject to above safeguard, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.