Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 waives service. Notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is dispensed with. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.54/2014. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 29.03.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No.25/PWDV/2013/D. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and the child alongwith other reliefs.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner is serving abroad and as such, the notice cannot be said to be properly served on the petitioner. It is submitted that thus, the impugned order was passed without effecting proper service on the petitioner. The learned Counsel also submits that there is an error of computation, while converting the amount of 500 U.S. dollars earned by the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate was in error in holding that 500 U.S. dollars would be equivalent to Rs.60,000/-. The learned Counsel would submit that going by the current conversion rate, 500 U.S. dollars, would approximately be Rs.35,000/-. He therefore submits that finding on the quantum is also not appropriate.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 on the contrary submits that both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that there was proper service on the petitioner. The learned Counsel does not dispute that 500 U.S. dollar would be equivalent to the amount approximately of Rs.35,000/-. The learned Counsel however submits that admittedly, there are no other dependents on the petitioner. He submits that the quantum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the learned Magistrate would be less than 50% of the earnings of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. At this stage, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is earning 500 U.S. dollars per month. In view of the fact that it is not in dispute that 500 U.S. dollars would be equivalent to an amount of Rs.35,000/- approximately, the interim maintenance granted is less than half the amount of the monthly earnings of the petitioner.
6. It is well settled that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to ensure that the applicant-wife is entitled to maintain the standard of living as that of the husband. If that be so, and further having regard to the fact that the amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted together to the wife and the child, no exception can be taken to the quantum of interim maintenance as awarded.
It is obvious that the computation of the income on the basis of 500 U.S. dollars is not correct and while deciding the main complaint, the Court shall have due regard to the appropriate conversion rate as may be applicable.
7. I also find that, the petitioner has now put in appearance in the complaint, which is pending before the learned Magistrate. Considering the overall circumstances, I do not find that interference is required in the interim order as passed.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.