1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8288 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIOON NO. 1512 OF 2009 Rajendra Vishwanath Pote ........ Petitioner versus Sou. Priyanka R. Pote ........Respondent. Mr. P. D. Pise adv. for the Petitioner Mr. Vinod Jadhav adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. The counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard the counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the husband calling in question an order passed by the trial court attaching the petitioner’s share in the joint family property. The petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 3000/­ per month for the wife and the children. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the present petitioner is in arrears of payment of maintenance aggregating to a sum of Rs. 1,56,300/­. On 6­11­2009 the learned counsel for the petitioner was present 2 and had contended that the petitioner is in arrears of amount of Rs. One lac only. On the said date the counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that the value of the share of the petitioner in the joint family property is much more than the amount payable to the respondent and hence the attachment of his share would not be just and proper. On 6­11­2009 the counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment with a view to obtain instructions from the petitioner as to whether he is ready and willing to deposit a substantial amount of arrears of maintenance towards satisfaction of the part of the claim. Hence the matter was adjourned to 10­11­2009. On 10­11­2009 the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the court. However, with a view to afford one more opportunity by way of last chance, the matter was adjourned and has kept today. Today as well the counsel for the petitioner is absent. It is thus revealed that the petitioner is not interested in paying the maintenance amount to the wife and children. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 4. Later on the counsel for the petitioner appeared and stated that he has no instructions from his client. He also requested that his presence may be shown in the cause title. Ordered accordingly. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)