1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6954 OF 2009 1 Shashikant Narayan Phulsunder 2 Sou. Kalpana Shashikant Phulsunder ...Petitioners vs. 1 Smt.Jayshree Ganesh Phulsunder 2 Kum.Priyanka Ganesh Phulsunder 3 Kum Kajal Ganesh Phulsunder ...Respondents Mr.Atul Kore h/f Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the petitioners Mr.Abhishek Deshmukh i/b Mr.Sanjeev Sawant for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 9, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original 2 nd and 3 rd defendants in a suit filed by the respondents. The first respondent is the wife of the first defendant Ganesh and the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are the daughters of said Ganesh. The first petitioner is a brother of said Ganesh and the 2 nd petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The respondents filed a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 for a decree of maintenance. On interim application made by the respondents, by order dated 16 th November 2002, the first defendant Ganesh was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month each to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents and maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the 1 st respondent. As compliance was not made with the said order by the first defendant, an application was made by the respondents seeking direction against the first defendant to pay maintenance as per the order dated 16 th November 2003. By order dated 8th October 2008, the 2 first respondent husband was directed to pay the amounts as per said the order from 31 st December 2004. As compliance was not made, by the impugned order warrant of attachment was issued against the petitioners under rule 43 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. This is the order impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Various submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners including the contention that under section 18 of the said Act of 1956, order of maintenance could have been passed only against the husband-the first defendant and not against his family members. He submitted that in fact, an application for reconsideration of the order dated 8 th October 2008 was made by the petitioners before the trial Court. He submitted that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue attachment warrant against the petitioners. 2 I have considered the submissions. The first order under challenge in this Writ Petition is order dated 8 th October 2008 by which the respondents were directed to pay interim maintenance with effect from 31 st December 2004. The second order under challenge is of issuing attachment warrant against the petitioners at the instance of the respondents. 3 If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of attachment, a remedy is available to the petitioners under rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 of raising an objection to the attachment of the properties. The said objection is bound to be considered by the trial Court in accordance with Rule 58 of Order XXI of the said Code. As a remedy is available by way of raising an objection to the warrant of attachment, it is not necessary to interfere with the 3 order of attachment in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the availability of remedy under the said Code, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE