1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4882 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.4194 OF 2008 Smt.Alkabaai w/o Narayan Garud Applicant Versus Sampat s/o Trimbak Garud & 3 others Respondents Mr.S.S.Dhapate, advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.B.Kadu, advocate holding for Mr.R.G.Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 31st July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.S.S.Dhapate, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1-appellant and Mr.S.B.Kadu, learned Counsel holding for Mr.R.G.Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.4. 2 Applicant is claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from Respondent No.1-appellant who is stated to be owner of the property. 3 Suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant claiming partition and separate possession of her share to the extent of 1/4 th came to be decreed by the trial Court. Appeal filed by defendants has also came to be dismissed. 4 In the instant application, two prayers are made. Prayer 2 Clause (c) relates to clamping an order of restraint against appellant restraining him from alienating the disputed property, whereas by prayer clause (b), applicant seeks a direction to the appellant to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month, during pendency of appeal. 5 Learned Counsel for appellant-Respondent No.1 herein has pointed out that the applicant has alienated one house property involved in dispute bearing No.12/14 for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. It is urged by Counsel appearing for the applicant that said property is the property belonging to the plaintiff and is not a joint family property. However, in the claim clause contained in the plaint as well as in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, said property is mentioned and the applicant has also prayed for decree of partition in respect of the properties including said property, which has been alienated by her. 6 In this view of the matter, relief claimed by the applicant in respect of grant of interim maintenance cannot be considered and same stands rejected. However, appellant – Respondent No.1 herein shall not create third party interest during pendency of this appeal. 7 Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/ca488209