1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3070 OF 2009 Nita Jitendra Gurali, Age: 36 years, C/o. Gurudas Arora, Nandkarni Bunglow, Lawrence Road, Flat No.842, Devlali Camp, Nashik. .. Petitioner Versus Jitendra Bhagatram Gurli, Age: 40 years, Occ:Hotelier, L.I.C. Agent, Plot No. 9, Rajpal Housing Socy, Jeur Patoda, Murshadpur, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. .. Respondent ... Mr. P.B. Waghmare, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2. Present Writ Petition is preferred by the wife against the order dated 06-10-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kopargaon below Exhibit-14 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2003 for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/- per month to Rs. 5000/- per month. 3. A few facts of the matter are as under. The respondent - husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 6/2002 for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Said petition came to be allowed by the judgment and decree passed in that petition. The respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the said petition till the petitioner remarries. Against that order of divorce, the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 90/2003 and same is pending before the appellate Court. 3 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent earns more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from his hotel business as well as L.I.C. commission. The application preferred by the petitioner below Exhibit-14 for enhancement of maintenance amount came to be rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the trial Court seems to be reasonable. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not brought additional evidence on record to show that she is entitled to the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. In any case, the appeal preferred by the petitioner being R.C.A. No. 90/2003 is pending in the appellate Court. Present order dated 06-10-2004 is in the nature of interlocutory order. As the main appeal is pending before the appellate Court and considering the facts of the present 4 case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 06-10-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kopargaon, below Exhibit-14 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2003. Therefore, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp3070.09