1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5229 OF 2009 Shri Nivasrao Dnyanu Jagtap.. .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Sunita Ajay Jagtap & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri V.S. Talkute for the Petitioner. Smt. Varsha Palav for Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . The Petitioner is the father-in-law of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent is a widow of the son of the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the Petitioner and other members of the family. On an application made by the 1st Respondent, the Trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the 1st Respondent till the disposal of the suit. This is the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that a claim made by the 1st Respondent in the suit for partition and 2 separate possession cannot be treated on par with a suit filed by the widow under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He submitted that the extent of joint family property is at the most 5 Hectares of land. He submitted that in the Written Statement filed by the Petitioner, an offer was given that the 1st Respondent can join the Petitioner and other members of the family in cultivating the lands in respect of which the name of the 1st Respondent has been entered. He submitted that the Trial Court has completely ignored the said offer recorded in the Written Statement. He submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error by taking into consideration all the lands though the same are not part of joint family properties. He submitted that the Petitioner himself is an old person and the amount of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- is excessive. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. From the offer given by the Petitioner, it is apparent that he along with other members of the family are in possession of the property in which the 1st Respondent ( who is the widow ) is having a share. According to the case of the Petitioner, the area of joint family property is 5 hectares. The material on record shows that the land admeasuring 5 hectares is an irrigated land and the Petitioner is getting the income from the said land by taking the cash crops like sugarcane, turmeric and soyabin. The Trial Court has recorded a prima facie finding that the Defendants in the said suit are possessing six houses and two open plots. It is prima facie found that the Petitioner is in possession of a shop at Malkapur. It is pertinent to note 3 that the Petitioner has not disclosed in his pleadings as to what was the income received from the area of 5 hectares of lands which is allegedly the only joint family property. 4. In the circumstances, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- fixed by the Trial Court is reasonable and no interference is called for. It is obvious that at the time of effecting the partition, the fact that the Petitioner has paid maintenance amount is bound to be considered when equities are adjusted. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J) ash