1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.469 OF 2010 Pandurang Vishnu Patil Petitioner versus Kanchanmala Pandurang Patil Respondents Chetan G. Patil for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27th January 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The Trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay total alimony of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent-wife. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order. The appeal was admitted. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court stayed the operation of the order of the Trial Court subject to petitioner paying monthly alimony of Rs.1,500/- till disposal of the appeal and subject to petitioner furnishing security of Rs.25,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order imposes a very harsh condition of furnishing 2 security. He submitted that when the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month, the condition of furnishing the security is unjust. 3. After having considered the submissions, I find no error in the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court in exercise of powers under Rule 5 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner was directed by the Trial Court to pay the total alimony of Rs.2,000/- per month. That amount has been brought down to Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of interim arrangement. Therefore, there was every justification for directing the petitioner to furnish security. 4. The writ petition is rejected. If security is not furnished till today, time to furnish the security is extended by a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)