1212wp5744.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5744 OF 2011 (Lalitkumar Madhukar Bhavsar Vs. Sau. Akshata Lalitkumar Bhavsar) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. V. Bhide, Counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 12 DECEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 01/8/2011 partly allowing the application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent towards maintenance pendente-lite and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court ought to have decided the issue of jurisdiction before deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance, specially when the trial Court had decided by an order dated 31/3/2011 to first decide the preliminary issue and then decide the application for grant of interim maintenance. 1212wp5744.11.odt 2/2 4. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as under the provisions of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Bombay amendment), the Court is not powerless to grant an interim relief in favour of the party pending decision on a preliminary issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 01/8/2011 deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance. 5. The petitioner also cannot seek any assistance from the order passed by the trial Court on 31/3/2011 as it is merely observed in that order that it would be desirable to frame and decide preliminary issue of jurisdiction prior to the decision on application, Exh.13. The order passed by the trial Court on 01/8/2011, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Court, as early as possible and positively, within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties before the trial Court. JUDGE wwl