SRJ 1 wp-10315-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10315 OF 2009 Dattatraya G. Thorat .. Petitioner V/s. Smt. Ashwini M. Thorat & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Amit Borkar, for Petitioner. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :7th APRIL,2010 P.C.:- 1. By this Writ Petition under article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to order of interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month passed by the trial Court in favour of the 1st Respondent who is the widow of the Petitioner s Son. 2. The 1st and 2nd Respondent are the Plaintiffs. The 1st Respondent is a 24 years old widow of deceased Mahesh who is the deceased son of the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent is 4 years old son of the said Mahesh. A suit for partition and separate possession has been filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Petitioner and 3rd to 8th Respondents. The 3rd and 4th Respondents are the sons of the Petitioner. The other Respondents are the family members of the Petitioner. The suit is for the partition SRJ 2 wp-10315-09.sxw and separate possession of the share of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in respect of various properties described in paragraph 1 of the Plaint. Out of the suit properties, five properties are house properties situated in the city of Kolhapur and the sixth property is an agricultural land. Pending the said suit, on the application made by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the impugned order of payment of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month has been passed. 3. The Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is willing to hand over one of the house properties to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He submitted that most of the suit properties are not the joint family properties but they are the self acquired properties. He submitted that the Petitioner-father-in-law is an old person and has no source of income. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the jewellery business is ancestral property. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Out of the suit properties, five house properties are situated in the city of Kolhapur. In respect of the some of the properties, a contention has been raised that the same are not the ancestral properties but they are self acquired properties of the Petitioner. All the suit properties are not self acquired properties. Considering the nature of the suit properties and the fact that the widow of the deceased son of the Petitioner has no income, the Petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No.1. The SRJ 3 wp-10315-09.sxw claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is for possession of their separate share in all the suit properties. The Petitioner cannot offer one property of his choice to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. This is not a case for interference under article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. Writ Petition is rejected. 6. Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J.)