WP.1885-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1885 OF 2010 Mr. Chandrashekhar G. Hajare ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Kishori C. Hajare & Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Prabha Badadare, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. A. Kocharekar, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Notice in this case is issued to the respondent only for the purpose of finding out whether there is possibility of resolving the dispute between petitioner and the respondent-wife. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that there is no possibility of settlement between the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed WP.1885-10 - 2 - by the District & Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, who was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to his wife & children. The petitioner is working in a Company. It is submitted that wife has given one flat on rent and she is also earning income therefrom. She is getting annuity out of the amount invested by the Company in which she was working. In my view, it is not possible to accept this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The said order is passed by way of interim maintenance. After having perused the impugned order, in my view, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. It is submitted that the fact that the respondent is receiving annuity and the rent, was brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner after the order was passed. The petitioner is therefore, at liberty to bring those facts to the notice of the trial Court at the final hearing of the said application. The trial Court shall decide the application for maintenance on merits and in accordance with law. . The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. [ V. M. KANADE J.]