1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1073 OF 2008 Smt. Anisha S., Savjani @ Meena Thakur. ..Appellant. Vs. Sichesh @ Shankar C. Savjani...Respondents. Mr.D.S. Chandanani i/by Lexim Associates for the Appellant. Ms.D.S.Shan for the Respondent Nos. 1,5 and 6. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 PC : 1. This is a appeal from order filed by the original petitioner impugning the judgment and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Kalyan below Exhibit-29 in Marriage Petition No.418 of 2006. By the said order, the Joint Civil Judge directed the husband to pay maintenance earlier granted within a period of 15 days from the date of the order failing which it has been directed that 2 his defence would be to be struck off. It is brought to my notice that defence of the husband has thereafter been struck off. It is also directed that petitioner can resort to filing an execution proceeding for recovery of the amount due. It appears from the order that the application of the petitioner under order 39 Rule 2A was kept pending on the ground that it required a separate enquiry and was required to be decided by leading evidence. I have perused the said application under Order 39 Rule 2A and the reply filed thereto. Reply filed there to on behalf of the husband is limited to the law point i.e. order for maintenance was passed U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, there was no order under order 39 Rule 2 of the CPC. In view of this, application can be decided without leading any evidence. In the circumstances, with directions to the trial court to decide the application under order 39 Rule 2A within four weeks from today, this appeal from order is disposed off. It is made clear that the appellant 3 petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to recovery of amount due in accordance with law. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)