usj IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1442 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1442 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1442 OF 2009 Mahalaxmi J. Kahaan ..Petitioner Vs. Jahind Kahaan ..Respondent ...... Mr. Khandeparkar i/by M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioner Mr. Chetan N. Mehta for Respondent No.1 ...... CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner-wife has challenged the impugned order whereby while granting the order of withdrawal of the maintenance amount, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, directed the petitioner-wife to furnish 50% PR bond and 50% solvent surety or bank-guarantee of the amount in question. 2. Admittedly, the interim maintenance order has attained the finality by the order passed by this Court. It is only when she applied for withdrawal of the amount, the Court has passed this order and put such unreasonable condition to the extent of directing to furnish Bank Guarantee or solvent surety. To put ( 2 ) such condition means, practically denying the right to the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel unable to point out any provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other provisions whereby the Court can put such condition. Even otherwise, to put such condition is practically denying the rights as observed already, which is impermissible. The impugned order is modified to that extent only. Rest of the order is maintained. 4. The petitioner is therefore, permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order already passed by the Court, subject to furnishing / submitting personal bond of whole amount as directed instead of bank guarantee/ solvent surety (50% of bank guarantee and/ or solvent surety). This however, is no way be treated as final order to decide the pending application as early as possible with regard to the allegations of fraud or suppression of facts. 5. The Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)