IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2010 REMINIA MASCARENHAS E GONSALVES ... Petitioner Versus BENJAMIN PROBRE GONSALVES & ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Nitin Sardessai,advocate for the petitioner. Mr Jayant P. Mulgaonkar,advocate for Respondent. No.1 Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 5th April, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 though served. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15/1/2009 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Mapusa in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no.2/2007 allowing the appeal against judgment and order dated 2/12/2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa in Civil Miscellaneous application no.307 of 2004 in Regular Civil Suit no.124/04/C. 3. The petitioner is the wife of respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed a suit seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction on the ground that the plaintiff had deposited the amount of Rs.8.50 lakhs in State Bank of India, Margao branch in the year 2002 which was transferred to Mapusa branch without his consent by the defendant no.1. 4. Along with the suit, an application for interim relief was filed which was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 2/12/2006. Appeal preferred by the respondent no.1/plaintiff has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court which is impugned in the present petition. 5. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of respondent no.1 and there is no divorce and as such, she is entitled to half share in the property of her husband i.e respondent no.1. Mr. Sardessai further submitted that the petitioner has to maintain three minor children and as such she finds it difficult to maintain not only herself but three minor children since she is not employed. 6. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioner/respondent no.1 is not entitled to any interim relief at this stage since the entire amount deposited in the bank belongs to respondent no.1. He further submitted that the paternity of one of the minor children is seriously disputed and in this factual background, the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw the amount. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record and considering the fact that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent no.1 and that she has to maintain two minor children who admittedly have been born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a part of the amount out of the total amount lying in bank/respondent no.2. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) out of the total amount of Rs.8.50 lakhs subject to the petitioner giving an undertaking to the trial Court that in the event the respondent no.1 succeeds, she will deposit the said amount in the trial Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order. . Considering that a limited issue is involved in Regular Civil Suit no.129/2004/C the trial Court shall expedite the suit. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-