1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3235 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3235 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3235 OF 2008 Sanjay Sapatrao Sapkal .. Petitioner V/s. Vrishali Sanjay Sapkal .. Respondent Mr.V.Y.Jadhav & Mr.A.N.Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr.Rupesh Bobade for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order, whereby Appellate Court has come to a clear conclusion that the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month, as directed to pay interim maintenance to the Respondent wife, need no interference as the basic objection through out was that the name of the son was also mentioned in the order basically in reasoning part and therefore, as the son Pratik is living, admittedly with the Petitioner husband, there is no question of any maintenance on that count. The impugned order dated 27th November, 2006, though observed as above, but ultimately directed 2 the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance. The application for clarification has also rejected by observing that the operative part is very clear by order dated 21st March, 2007. 2. Lastly, the same is confirmed in order dated 8th January, 2008 that there was no question of any correction or clarification as contemplated or as agitated as per section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The Petitioner challenge the inter-locatory order of interim orders also need no interference as the reasoning given by the Court while assessing the compensation in paragraph 7. The reasoning cannot be said to be perverse. It is according to law. The maintenance /compensation as awarded is also therefore need no interference as basic challenge was only to the aspect of mentioning the name of Pratik in the order. There is no serious challenge / dispute about the same. 4. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. No orders as to costs. 3 (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)