1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2840 OF 2009 Shri Mohan Maruti Malvadkar .. Petitioner Vs Smt Sonali Shirish Malvadkar and anr .. Respondents Mr.Shadab Parizade i/b Deepak Gupte , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Samant, for Respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 25/11/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 4.2.2009, by which the trial court has directed him to pay Rs.7500/- per month to the respondents. The respondents are daughter-in-law and grand-son of the petitioner. The husband of respondent no.1 died on 1.9.06. Before his death, he was also involved in the family business and was actively looking after the business in the name and style as Vivek Textiles.Mr.Parizade, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the order solely on the ground that there is no provision in the Act, which provides for grant of interim maintenance pending decision of the petition T 2 under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Similar contention was raised in Rajesh Nanaji Morghade Vs. Darshana Rajesh Morghade and anr, 1993 (3) Bom C.R.99 when this court in paragraph 16 observed thus: “16. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision in the Act which provides for grant of interim maintenance pending decision of the suit and, hence, the trial Court has no power to grant interim maintenance, is not based on sound footing and also suffers from lack of merit, in view of the Judgment of this Court reported in (Madhukar Akhand V Smt Bhima Akhand), AIR 1983 Bom 489. In para 10 of the above referred judgment of this court, ths Court has observed as under:- “It is a settled position in law that where the principal power or main right to grant relief is conferred upon the Court or upon an authority, such Court or authority has also powers to grant those and such reliefs which are incidental to the main relief.” This court, in para-12 of the above referred judgment observed thus:- “In view of what I have observed above, it seems to me that the right to grant interim relief flows from the substantive right in sections 18 and 20 themselves and if not, section 151 can be called in aid to translate that right into practice and actual relief. The power to grant such a relief is incidental and ancillary to the power to grant final maintenance both under sections 18 and 20.” Keeping the observations made by this court in the aforesaid judgment in view and considering the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 3 impugned order, in my opinion, substantial justice has been done. The order impugned, therefore, does not deserve interference by this court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)