1 33 sa.260.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2011 Appasaheb Govindrao Tate. ... Appellant Versus Sou. Vimal Appasaheb Tate. ... Respondent ­­­­­ Mr. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the Appellant. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25 th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the leaned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The Appellant – husband has taken an exception to the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court by which he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/­ per month to the Respondent – wife. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that in suit for partition filed by the Respondent, there is already an interim order passed under which the maintenance has been ordered to be paid to the Respondent – 2 33 sa.260.11 wife. His submission is that when the Respondent – wife had already obtained an order of maintenance in the suit for partition, the suit filed by the Respondent for maintenance was not be maintainable. He submitted that the trial Court directed that till the order of maintenance passed in the partition suit was not set side, the decree for maintenance will not become operative. He submitted that the Appellate Court has set aside even that part of the decree and therefore, the decree passed by the Appellate Court is illegal. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Courts below and in particular, the trial Court has considered the documentary evidence on record including the property register cards showing that the Appellant was holding a large number of immovable properties in Kolhapur district. Considering the extent of the properties held by the Appellant, maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000/­ per month has been fixed. The Appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that the interim maintenance has been ordered to be paid in the suit for partition. The Appellate Court noted that the present suit for 3 33 sa.260.11 maintenance was filed in the year 1998 and the Appellant has been directed to pay the maintenance from the date of institution of the suit and the interim order of maintenance has been passed in the partition suit filed in the year 2005. Clause (iii) of paragraph No.3 of the operative part of the District Court reads thus: “(iii) The direction issued by the trial court staying the operation of the decree so long as the interim order of maintenance passed in Suit No.91/05 is in force, is hereby set aside. In this regard it is directed that the interim amount of maintenance which is paid by the defendant No.1 shall be adjusted in the decree which is passed in this matter.” The Appellate Court has thus provided for adjustment of the maintenance amount paid in the suit for partition. 4 Pendency of the suit for partition does not take away the right of the wife to apply for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 5 Hence, no substantial question of law arises. Second 4 33 sa.260.11 appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6 Civil Application No.354 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]