[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2623 OF 2008
Anil Rangnath Chavan & Anr. .... Petitioners
Vs.
Meera Shivaji Chavan & Anr. .... Respondents
Shri Ganesh K. Gole for the Petitioners.
Shri G.M. Savagave for the Respondents.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008
P.C:
1. The
petitioners have challenged the order dated
3-12-2007 whereby the application filed by the
respondents for maintenance is allowed and the
petitioners are directed to pay to the respondents
herein Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance from
28-11-2005. Admittedly, the respondents’ suit for
partition has been decreed and the appeal filed by the
respondents is pending. Pending the suit for partition,
the petitioners moved this application in the appeal
against the order whereby her suit for maintenance was
dismissed.
2. There are clear averments made that she has no
source of income and to maintain herself and her minor
daughter she requires certain amount regularly. The
Court, in fact, on Exhibit-12 has already passed some
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:06:31 :::
[2]
order and granted a limited relief, restricting it to
the litigation expenses and S.T. fares but no order was
passed, as prayed in the present application.
3. The finding given by the Court below while
rejecting the application is that once suit for
partition is filed and the same is pending for final
adjudication, there is no question of filing such
maintenance application by the person like the applicant
who is admittedly the widow of one of the brothers in
the family and her claim of partition unless adjudicated
finally. It is
ig difficult to accept the case of the
respondents to say that she is not at all entitled for
maintenance. A widow with a minor definitely needs
regular income to maintain herself and her daughter.
The property of her late husband if is the
subject-matter of the partition suit, pending the
decision she is definitely entitled for some
maintenance, at least out of the share of her husband.
In this background, I am of the view that such
application needs to be allowed as the respondents are
entitled for the maintenance pending the decision in the
suit/appeal for partition. However, it is made clear
that whatever amount she is entitled pursuant to this
order will be subject to adjustment if ultimately the
suit/appeal for partition is allowed and if she gets the
share in the suit property.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:06:31 :::
[3]
4. Taking all these into account, I see there is no
reason to interfere with the impugned order. However,
six weeks’ time is granted to make the payment. The
parties are at liberty to settle the matter. The
petition is accordingly disposed of.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
sjs/D8wp2623.8
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:06:31 :::