ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for certiorari to quash the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete on I.A.No.1 in M.C.No.62/2018, dated 27.05.2019; the said I.A.No.1 having been filed by respondent-wife seeking for grant of interim maintenance OF Rs.30,000/-and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. 2. It is contended that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 05.05.2017 at Aurangabad, Maharashtra State. 3. The petitioner and respondent are neighbourers, they fell in love with each other, eloped and got married before the Registrar of Marriage in Aurangabad. Thereafter they were residing together at Hosapete at the house of the father of the petitioner. Though they lived happily for several months unfortunately, the parents of the respondent were hating both of them because they have married against their will. They insisted and apparently prevailed upon the respondent to desert the petitioner and go back to them because of which the respondent left the house of the petitioner on 11.10.2017 and started living with her parents. 4. It is stated that there are several cases filed by the petitioner and respondent against each other, the parents, uncles and other relatives of the respective parties. The relationship between the families therefore has got strained, resulting in several litigations, complaints including dowry harassment case being filed, which is pending before the concerned Court. In the above circumstances, the petitioner believing that the action taken by the respondent is solely on account of the instigation by her parents, the petitioner filed MC No.62/2018 seeking for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 5. On appearance, the respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for interim maintenance alleging that the petitioner is running a cloth showroom under the name and style as P4U and earning in lakhs. She has also alleged that the petitioner is earning huge rentals totally about 3-4 lakhs per month. 6. The respondent is stated to be a student studying in 5th semester of BBM in Vijayanagar College, Hosapete, is unable to maintain herself and had sought for Rs.30,000/-as maintenance and Rs.25,000/-as litigation expenses. 7. She has also alleged that the petitioner is earning huge rentals totally about 3-4 lakhs per month. 6. The respondent is stated to be a student studying in 5th semester of BBM in Vijayanagar College, Hosapete, is unable to maintain herself and had sought for Rs.30,000/-as maintenance and Rs.25,000/-as litigation expenses. 7. The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that all the statements made by the respondent are false and he does not have an income as alleged the respondent has not produced any document to establish the alleged income of the petitioner etc., it is the respondent who has deserted the petitioner. It is for this reason, the petitioner has filed an application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, in the event of respondent coming and living with the petitioner there would no requirement to make payment of interim maintenance or litigation expenses, since according to the petitioner the litigation and disputes would got resolved. 8. Having considered all aspects and coming to the conclusion that the respondent has not produced any document to establish the income of the petitioner, the trial Court in order to protect the life and living of the respondent has ordered a nominal sum of Rs.5,000/-as maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court contending that the said awardal of the Rs.5,000/-per month as maintenance is without any basis, there is no documents, which has been produced by the respondent to establish any income on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a student studying in second year Law and therefore, he would be unable to make payment of the amounts. 9. Shri Rohit Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is always ready and willing to reside together with respondent; filing of the application is only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner having made several attempts to reconcile the differences with the respondent, the same has not yielded any positive result. He submits that the petitioner even as of now has tried to reach the respondent and his family members, but they are not reciprocating the positive intention of the petitioner. The petitioner has no source of income and is only depending on his father for his education and for other requirements. He submits that the petitioner even as of now has tried to reach the respondent and his family members, but they are not reciprocating the positive intention of the petitioner. The petitioner has no source of income and is only depending on his father for his education and for other requirements. As such in the above circumstance, he submits that he is unable to make payment of the said amounts and the order passed without considering the financial capability of the petitioner is contrary to law and ought to be set aside. 10. Shri Dayanand Bandi, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights is filed to try and get over the various disputes and complaints, which have been filed between the family members interse. He submits that it is the parents of the petitioner, who have ill-treated the respondent, due to which several complaints have been filed and there are CC-TV recording, which are available to establish the harassment effected by the parents of the petitioner on the respondent. He submits that the respondent is unable to obtain any documents to establish the actual income of the petitioner and/or his family, but the fact remains that the petitioner and his family are running cloth showroom in the name and style P4U, which cannot be denied by the petitioner and or his father. The petitioner and his family members are having huge and multiple sources of income, the respondent ought to be given due amounts for her maintenance, since she has been made to desert the petitioner on account of the ill-treatment meted out by the petitioner and his parents. 11. Heard Shri Rohit Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dayanand Bandi, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the papers. 12. The contentions which have been urged by both the counsels in the above matter are at present mere contentions and they are required to establish during the course of trial. The matter could not be taken up for evidence on account of the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic condition and is therefore at the stage of petitioner’s evidence for quite some time. The allegations and counter allegations, which are made are not germane to the issue at hand namely the awardal of maintenance for the purpose of maintaining the basic living of the respondent-wife. The allegations and counter allegations, which are made are not germane to the issue at hand namely the awardal of maintenance for the purpose of maintaining the basic living of the respondent-wife. Taking into consideration the entirety of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.5,000/-per month which has been awarded as interim maintenance as also a sum of Rs.10,000/-which has been awarded towards litigation expenses is just and proper, taking into account the social status of both the petitioner and the respondent; whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights or otherwise would have to established during the course of trial before the trial Court. 13. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial and dispose off the matter within a period of nine (09) months from the date on which the Court is permitted to record the evidence in the matter before it.