,2- THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVING: ORDER
The petitioner and respond.enVt>_’were””Inarriet1v”*o;1 ”
22.11.2005. There was
petitioner and the responderit;«…q1″14ence-,’tithe’
wife started staying away. It ap_pears.._certainallegations
are made against Ki-espondent~wife
has flied a petitiorl the Hindu
Marriage Act; to as “the Act”
for short} marriage and the
“petition for restitution of
conjugal
connsei appearing for the petitioner
the petitions are clubbed and
V _comn*i-on.–._eVidence is being recorded. The respondent
maintains an application seeking interim
‘_’_geg~ri1a_intenance under Section 24 of the Act. The iearned
T –:’.4:”i+’arni1y Judge having regard to the circumstances has
“awarded a sum of Rs.5.000/~p.m. as interimfl
/
/’/:/’
-3-
maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order husband is
before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel _
the petitioner as well as perused thei>mpugned:orde:r.’– _ it
4. indeed, a finding is _reeoi’de’cin by
Family Judge that the Gross””Sstiary of’ the is
Rs.67,808/-p.m. and Jjjafter home
salary is Rs.47,5&38/-p.rnV._’t’ iin-come were to
be taken into 4e}imsid:eration,.°i_’a§niv…o:f the View that
awardingdtwiof eit””Rs.5,000/–p.m. to the
respondzentwvife to be excessive. Indeed,
to my .tl’f_.e ifidettermination of the interim
‘*mai’nt:er2’ance of i§s§’5;O00/–p.m. itself is Very much less
i_f’Vonetct.,t’f¢;ke into consideration the net saleuy of
V the
” ‘tt*-._ N’o”‘merit. Petition stands rejected.
Sd/-1
Image
SS*