Raghunath Anna Patil And Ors vs Suvarna Rajaram Patil And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2691 Bom

Dusane                                        1/4                 4 wp 576.18 with IA 1480.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 576 OF 2018
                                         WITH
                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1480 OF 2019



     Raghunath Anna Patil & Ors.                    ....   Petitioner

             Vs.

     Suvarna Rajaram Patil & Ors.                   ....     Respondents


     Mr. Satyavrut Joshi for Petitioner.
     Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                                         Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C.:

1. In a suit for partition, the Respondent/Plaintiff moved an

application for grant of interim maintenance, which came to be allowed

vide order impugned dated 17th August, 2011 passed by the Joint Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Islampur, thereby directing the Petitioner-

Defendant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month.

2. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner by drawing

support from the judgment of Apex Court in the matters of Sudeep

Dusane 2/4 4 wp 576.18 with IA 1480.doc

Chaudhary Vs. Radha Chaudhary, reported in (1997) 11 Supreme Court

Cases, page 286 and Sanjay Pundlikrao Niranjane Vs. Swati Sanjay

Niranjane, reported in 2005(2) Bombay C.R. (Cri.) page 905, would

urge that if the parallel proceedings for maintenance are pending, the

amount of maintenance awarded by the Court needs to be adjusted.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / original

Plaintiffs supports the order impugned.

4. Considered rival submissions.

5. I am informed that the maintenance granted under Section

125 Cr.P.C. came to be enhanced to Rs.3,000/- in the year 2019.

6. As far as impugned order is concerned, while granting

interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/-, the trial Court was sensitive to the

fact that in maintenance Proceeding No.149 of 2000, the maintenance

was awarded to Rs.1,000/- and enhancement of same was sought.

7. Considering the fact that the claimants of the maintenance

i.e. in the plaintiffs in the partition suit are wife and daughter, award of

Dusane 3/4 4 wp 576.18 with IA 1480.doc

maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month in the proceedings is very much

justified and does not call for any interference particularly having

regard to the total holding of the Petitioner which is subject matter of

the suit.

8. The contentions that, the maintenance ought not to have

been awarded in a partition suit is also liable to be rejected. The

aforesaid issue is no more res-integra, as it has been held that in a suit

for partition, it is always open for the party dependent who has no

independent source of income and who is dependent on karta can claim

maintenance. In the case in hand, the relation between the parties, the

Petitioner and Respondent are that of husband and wife with children.

Husband is facing a suit for partition initiated by dependent wife and

children. The fact remains that the Petitioner is enjoying the suit

property over which the Respondents have every right in view of their

relation with the Petitioner-Plaintiff. It is bounden duty of the

Petitioners to maintain the dependents like that of wife and children.

That being so, no case for interference is made out. The petition fails.

Dismissed.

Dusane 4/4 4 wp 576.18 with IA 1480.doc

9. The Respondents/Original Applicants are permitted to

withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by the Petitioner/original

Respondent before the trial Court.

10. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application

does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed of.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )