DATTATRAYA VITHAL SAWANT Vs. SEEMA DATTATRAYA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriage celebrated in the month of May 1980 has not led to any harmony between the spouses when the wife was obliged to file Marriage Petition No.937 of 1982 in the City Civil Court, Bombay under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is unnecessary to enter into the arena of the rival contention on merits as the same is not concerned to this proceeding. The wife moved the trial Court for interim maintenance during the pendency of the said petition claiming an amount of Rs. 750 per month. She alleged that the husband owns and runs a shop under the name and style as 'People General Stores having quite a lucrative business and be has engaged services of about three salesman and he is financially well of. There are separate telephone connections installed in the shop and at the residence. The other two brothers of the husband are gainfully employed. She claimed that she has no source of income for her maintenance.

(2.) This motion was resisted by the husband mainly as regards the quantum of the amount of maintenance. Though the running of the said shop was accepted, he qualified that it was a joint family business and the monthly income was hardly to the tune of Rs. 750. He, therefore, disputed the correctness of the claim of the wife regarding the quantum of maintenance.

(3.) The learned trial Judge on consideration of the relevant material came to the conclusion that in the minimum the husband's income on his own showing could not have been less than Rs. 1,500 per month though in fact it may be more. There is a finding that it is a proprietary concern and not a joint family concern. He also recorded a finding that the wife soon after the marriage in the very next month resigned from the job where she was earlier employed and since then she has no independent source of income for her maintenance. The learned Judge fixed the quantum at Rs. 750 per month as interim maintenance. This order recorded on Oct. 13, 1983 is being challenged by the husband in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.