1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7784 OF 2009 Vaishnavi Vishnu Sandav .. Petitioner. Vs. Vishnu Balu Sandav .. Respondent. Mr.Suresh More for the petitioner. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner-wife has impugned the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by the Family Court holding that it would be proper to decide her prayer for interim maintenance alongwith petition No.A-966 of 2006 filed by the respondent- husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It appears that the wife filed Petition No.C-47 of 2006 for maintenance and thereafter the respondent-husband filed Petition No.A-966 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights. According to Mr.More, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-husband has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights only with a view to defeat the right of the petitioner-wife for maintenance. I do not propose to express any opinion on the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage. 2 Having regard to the nature of the order impugned in the writ petition I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The learned Judge of the Family Court shall endeavour to dispose of both the petitions i.e. C-47 of 2006 and A-966 of 2006 expeditiously. However, if the learned Judge finds that the respondent is adopting delaying tactics and it is not possible to dispose of both the petitions within 3-4 months for today, she shall proceed to decide the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance within a period of two months therefrom. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)