AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
Petitioner is the wife. Respondent is the husband. The marriage was performed on 26.8.2005 before the Registrar of Special Marriage, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. Suffice to say that all was not well with the marriage. Hence, proceedings were initiated by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act. She also filed an application for interim maintenance for herself and two children. The contention of the petitioner-wife is that there are school going children and she requires maintenance for herself and also for the children. It is her case that even though she is working at IBM, she is not getting enough salary to maintain herself and the children and that the respondent is working at WIPRO. In these circumstances, she seeks interim maintenance for herself and also for the children. The said application was seriously opposed by the respondent-husband on the ground that the take-home salary of the wife was Rs. 70,000/- as on the date of the application and her gross annual income is Rs. 8,25,000/-, In the circumstances, the question of granting interim maintenance does not arise. It is also his objection that his salary is Rs. 56,000/-, The learned Judge of the Family Court was of the view that the petitioner-wife is not entitled for maintenance, inasmuch as she is gainfully employed. Insofar as the children are concerned, the learned Family Judge was of the view that the petitioner is entitled to for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance pending disposal of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the wife is before this Court.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
Apparently, the petitioner would rely on the Joint Agreement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre wherein the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. But however, the parties did not act on the settlement. Hence, the matter was again gone back to the Family Court for a full-fledged trial. I am of the view that having regard to the salary of the petitioner and the averments made in the memorandum of petition seeking dissolution of marriage, I am of the view that the petitioner is gainfully employed and earning substantially. Indeed, the respondent has not objected for payment of interim maintenance of the children at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is ordered for maintenance of the children with reference to the salary of the respondent and also that of the petitioner, there is little scope for enhancement. Having said so, I am of the view that impugned order cannot be faulted.
Petition is rejected.