1 cam.217.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.93 OF 2010 Manan Prasad Tarachand Bhondekar ...Applicant Versus Rita Mananprasad Bhondekar ...Respondent ...... Mr.Dushyant Purekar for Applicant. Mr.D.V.Bhosale for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 16, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Application, it is prayed that the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court be stayed during the pendency of Appeal. The Trial Court on analysing the relevant materials on record has concluded that the husband is liable to pay sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) per month to the wife towards monthly maintenance including accommodation charges from the date of the order. The fact that the Appeal challenging the said decision has been admitted, does not mean that the finding recorded by the Trial Court can be totally overlooked. Going by the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding no source of income for the 2 cam.217.10.sxw wife, on the other hand, husband has sufficient means and is gainfully engaged in business of real estate, in our opinion, no interference is warranted at this stage. 2. Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Court may consider of restoring the interim arrangement which obtained during the pendency of the proceedings whereunder the Applicant was required to pay only sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards maintenance. We are not impressed by this argument. Now that the Trial Court has decided the issue after full fledged trial and opined that the wife is entitled to Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance, that order ought to prevail during the pendency of the Appeal, considering the fact that the husband is in a position to pay such amount. Hence, this Application is rejected. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)