:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9299 OF 2007 Mrs.Kapila Kailas Jaju .. Petitioner. Vs. Mr.Kailas Rameshwar Jaju .. Respondent. Mr.M.B.Shirsat for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner-wife has impugned an order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon allowing her application for grant of interim alimony under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.P.No.79/2006. The husband has filed petition for divorce. By the impugned order the respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to her daughter from the date of application i.e. 14.8.2006. It appears that the husband also had challenged the very same order by way of writ petition No.7469 of 2007 which came to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 25.1.2008. While disposing of the writ petition the operative :2: :2: :2: portion of the impugned judgment has been modified and the respondent-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.1,000/- from 12.12.2006 instead of 14.8.2006. Rest of the order remained unaltered. 3. Mr.Shirsat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner during pendency of her application for maintenance had applied to the Income Tax Department seeking information about her husband’s income so also about his Demat account. He submits that when the husband came to know about the same he informed the Income Tax department not to give such information to the petitioner and in view thereof an inference may be drawn that his income is much more then what has been inferred by the trial Court. I find it difficult to enter into this controversy in the instant petition. It is always open for the parties to seek witness summons and production of relevant information/documents during trial. The petitioner can also make such effort during trial. Considering the reasons recorded in the impugned order I do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence writ petition is disposed of. The trial Court, however, shall allow the parties to :3: :3: :3: adduce evidence in support of their contentions and shall decide the petition for divorce on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the quantum of maintenance fixed by the impugned order. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the H.M.P. No.79/2006 as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of ten months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)