{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9767 OF 2010 Nitin s/o Ramchandra Datkhile, age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o “Meenanjali”, Tanajinagar, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune, District Pune 411 033 Petitioner Versus Sau.Vanita Nitin Datkhile, age: 34 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Daund Vasti, Tilak Nagar, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. Respondent Mr. A.S.Bajaj, advocate for petitioner Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri A.S.Bajaj, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mrs.M.D.Thube, learned Counsel for Respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 An application tendered by the petitioner seeking stay of further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.34/2005 until disposal of Second Appeal No.256/2008 has been turned down by the trial Court in view of the order passed on 19.08.2010 and said {2} order of rejection of application is subjected to challenge in this petition. 3 It is the contention of petitioner that Respondent is his wife and marriage took place on 17.12.1999. It further transpires that petitioner presented an application seeking annulment of marriage bearing HMP No.44/2001. However, said petition came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by order dated 20.04.2005. An appeal preferred by petitioner bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.501/2005 has also been dismissed and orders passed by the Courts below, in the proceedings initiated by husband for annulment of marriage, are subject matter of challenge in Second Appeal No.256/2008 and said appeal is pending for final disposal before the High Court. 4 In the meanwhile, Respondent-wife presented a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.34/2005 seeking decree of maintenance against petitioner and the suit is pending. In the pending suit, petitioner herein – husband presented an application at Exhibit-40 for stay of further proceedings in the suit in view of pendency of Second Appeal by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the contention of petitioner that the issue of annulment of marriage is required to be adjudicated in the Second Appeal. The entitlement of the respondent-wife to receive maintenance would depend upon the order that would be passed in Second Appeal No.256/2008 as the {3} issue of annulment of marriage is pending consideration before the High Court. It is contended that previous litigation between same parties and decision in the earlier litigation would have an impact on the outcome of proceedings presented by Respondent -wife at subsequent stage. 5 Learned Counsel for Respondent-wife has contended that entitlement of the wife to receive maintenance has nothing to do with the pending litigation. Even otherwise, wife is entitled to receive amount of maintenance until passing of appropriate orders in the pending litigation presented by husband. It has been brought to my notice that during pendency of civil suit presented by husband, he was required to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month and the amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs.2000/- in Misc. Appeal presented by the husband. The husband, during pendency of proceedings initiated by him, was continued to pay Rs.2000/- per month. 6 Considering the passage of time between earlier order and consideration of application, it would be desirable to direct the husband to continue to pay Rs.3000/- per month from the month of October-2010 to the wife during pendency of proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.34/2005. The further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.34/2005 shall stand stayed until disposal of proceedings in Second Appeal No.256/2008. Respondent-wife agrees to provide her bank account number to the husband within {4} four weeks from today. Petitioner husband shall deposit monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- in the bank account of Respondent-wife before 10th day of each month. Any three consecutive defaults in payment of maintenance amount will have an effect of revoking the order passed today in the instant petition. The impugned order dated 19.08.2008, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, below Exhibit-40 in Special Civil Suit No.34/2005 is quashed and set aside. 7 Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to the costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp976710