-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1675 OF 2008 Jaydeo Ramchandra Kale & Anr. : Petitioners (Orig.Defendants 1 & 2) V/s. Kumar Bhushan Shrikant Kale & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.S.D.Patil for the petitioners. ... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are husband and wife. In Special Civil Suit No.24/2006, an application at exh.67 was filed for grant of interim alimony to the plaintiffs and the said application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, by order dated 30.6.2007. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition no.6957 of 2007 and this Court while disposing off the said petition on 4.12.2007 did not interfere with the order passed on 30.6.2007 directing the present petitioner no.1 to pay an -: 2 :- amount of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of interim alimony to the plaintiffs. However, this Court observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for modification or variation of the order under challenge and, therefore, an application at exh.116 came to be filed by the present petitioners for review of the order dated 30.6.2007. By the impugned order dated 24.1.2008, the said application has also been rejected. 3. In the review application, two main grounds were taken, viz., the property bearing gat no.479/2 was the self-acquired property of Ramchandra and it was not an ancestral property purchased by their ancestors deceased Maruti. Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner no.1 is a Conductor and he is not cultivating the agricultural land. The trial Court did not agree with any of these contentions so as to review its earlier order. Whether the property is ancestral or not is an issue which will have to be decided at the trial of the suit and per se it cannot be accepted that as the petitioner was a Conductor employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, he is not able to cultivate the agricultural land held by the petitioner. The plaintiffs are the L.Rs. of the deceased brother of the petitioner no.1 and, therefore, he cannot escape the liability of interim alimony. -: 3 :- 4. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected. The trial of the suit is expedited and, undoubtedly, will have to be decided on its own merits. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.