(1) WP. 230.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 230 OF 2010 Rambhau S/o Popal Birhade .. Petitioner VERSUS Manisha D/o Rambhau Birhade and anr. .. Respondents Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioner challenges order dated 18.11.2009 rendered by learned District Judge-II, Dhule whereby execution of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was not stayed to the full extent. Only partial stay was granted in respect of the quantum of past maintenance allowance awarded by the trial Court. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month to each of the respondents/plaintiffs till disposal of the appeal. The relationship between the parties is undisputed. The impugned order is rendered while exercising (2) WP. 230.2010 discretion under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order does not appear to be perverse in view of the fact that the trial Court categorically observed that the petitioner is an employed person and is earning salary of Rs.9000/- and odd. Needless to say, the interim order rendered by the District Court need not be interferred with. However, the final disposal of the appeal before the learned District Judge is expedited and the learned District Judge is directed to decide the appeal within a period of six months as far as possible. It is also made clear that this Court had not expressed any opinion on merits and that the District Judge himself shall not consider the observations made in the impugned order as the final opinion. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp