: 1 : cwp-9604-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9604 OF 2010 Mrs. Vaijayantimala Babaso Shinde .. Petitioner v/s. Babaso @ Baburao Dattu Shinde .. Respondent ......... Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the petitioner Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 29th APRIL, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of admission of the petition. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in the Court of learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur seeking maintenance from the respondent in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for interim maintenance. That application for interim maintenance has been decided by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by his order dated 2nd September, 2009. The said Court has rejected the said application. : 2 : cwp-9604-10=.sxw 2. Being aggrieved by order dated 2nd September, 2009 the petitioner has filed this petition. I have extensively heard learned Counsel on both sides. The suit came to be instituted in the year 2005 whereas application for interim maintenance was filed in January, 2008 i.e. practically after 3 years from the date of the lodgment of the suit. It is required to be mentioned that the petitioner has been granted a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month in the proceedings filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not mention the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panhala and this figure was supplied to the Court today across the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur and he has discussed the relevant material which was placed before him. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the learned Judge has considered the relevant material which was placed before him. In my view, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. However, looking to the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2005, it would be proper if the suit is disposed of at an earlier date. Looking to the relevant dates, I am inclined to direct learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur to hear and dispose of the Special Civil Suit No.71 of 2005 on : 3 : cwp-9604-10=.sxw or before 31st December, 2011. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER (I) No interference is required in the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2009. (II) Looking to the fact that the suit came to be filed for maintenance in the year 2005, learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur is directed to hear and dispose of the Special Civil Suit No.71 of 2005 on or before 31st December, 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)