1 SSK/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10332 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2010 Kashish Arjun Rohra & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus Nirmala Parasram Rohra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. J. S. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: The Petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1’s husband-Arjun (Son of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) expired on 19th May, 2008. The Petitioner No.1’s case is that her husband and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 formed Joint Hindu Family. This Joint Hindu Family, owns several ancestral properties. It is her further case that after the demise of her husband, the Respondents neglected and refused to 2 maintain her and her minor daughter and therefore, Special Civil Suit No. 352 of 2008 for general partition and possession of the properties was filed. In this suit, the Petitioners claimed interim maintenance @ Rs. 18,000/- p.m.. By the order impugned, the learned III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kalyan rejected the Petitioners’ application on the ground that the Petitioners could not prove any ancestral property in the hands of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. The civil application no.930 of 2010 is filed by the Petitioners for leave of this Court to rely upon the documents annexed to the civil application. There are two documents annexed to the civil application viz. the sale deed dated 20th October, 1972 and deed of conveyance dated 14th June, 1960. The sale deed of 1972 pertains to purchase of the factory by the father of Respondent No.2. The deed of conveyance also discloses that the father of Respondent No.2 was allotted Room No.6 in Camp 4, Barrack No.1535. It is the case of the Petitioners that this room was demolished and thereafter, a bungalow was constructed by the father of Respondent No.2. In short, the Petitioners contend that the factory mentioned above and the bungalow constructed on plot in Barrack No.1535 is an ancestral property of the Respondent No.2. However, these documents could not be produced at the time of disposal of the Petitioners’ application for grant of maintenance. 3 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, does not dispute the above said documents. Since these documents were not before the Trial Court, it would be proper to remand the matter back to the learned Trial Judge to consider the Petitioners’ prayer afresh in the light of those documents. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition and the civil application is disposed of, by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order dated 1st July, 2008 is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the Petitioners’ application at Exhibit “5” afresh. 2. The Trial Court shall decide the Petitioners’ application at Exhibit “5” as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order after taking into consideration the sale deed dated 20th October, 1972 and deed of conveyance dated 14th June, 1960. 3. The Petitioners and Respondents are at liberty to produce and rely upon other documents, as may be advised. 4 4. The Respondent No.2 is directed to pay to the Petitioners, an amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of ex- gratia payment within a period of two weeks from today. This amount shall be adjusted in an amount of maintenance that may be granted by the Trial Court after hearing both the parties. Order accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)