(1) WP. 941.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 941 OF 2010 Sow. Rukhaminbai W/o Suresh Raut and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Suresh S/o Baban Raut and others .. Respondents Mr.S.B. Rohile, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.C.V. Korhalkar, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are the wife and minor sons of respondent no.1 i.e. Suresh. They filed suit for partition and separate possession. In such suit they submitted an application (Exh. 5A) seeking interim maintenance allowance under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondent no. 2 to 4 are in-laws and brother-in-law of the petitioner no.1. The petitioners claim partition in respect of agricultural lands bearing gat no. 69 and gat no.72 situated at village Rahatgaon under Paithan Tahsil. (2) WP. 941.2010 The trial Court rejected their application on the ground that the agricultural lands were found to have been purchased by the defendant no.2 and defendant no.4, separately, and were standing in their names. 2. Counsel would submit that the respondents are members of joint Hindu family and therefore the discretionary order of maintenance allowance ought to have been passed in favour of the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners have no other source of income and cannot be left without financial support. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the respondent no.1 if proper case is made out. Question is whether the petitioners can claim such interim maintenance allowance without there being prima facie proof to show that both the agricultural lands are properties of the Undivided Hindu Family (UHF). For that purpose, it is necessary to locate the source of acquisition and availability of joint nucleus. The trial Court noticed that name of the respondent no.1 was not (3) WP. 941.2010 mutated in the 7/12 record and his joint cultivation of the lands could not be inferred from the available record, on prima facie evaluation thereof, and as such the petitioners could not establish prima facie case which requires indulgence of the Court to use discretion under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The impugned order does not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity etc. Hence, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not find it necessary to interfere in the said order. It would be in the interest of justice however, to direct the trial Court to expeditiously decide the suit (R.C.S. 333 of 2008). The Petition is therefore dismissed with direction that the trial Court shall expeditiously take up hearing of the suit and decide the same within a period of ten (10) months as far as possible. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp