1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3289 OF 2009 ... Sanjay s/o Kamalkumar Agrawal ...PETITIONER V E R S U S Poornima w/o Sanjay Agrawal. ..RESPONDENT. Shri.D.S.Bharuka, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.S.H.Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Shri Bharuka, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim maintenance is granted in a suit which itself is not maintainable. He submits that the suit has been filed for past maintenance from 01.06.2000 to end of June, 2001 and for future maintenance. He submits that said suit is not maintainable and therefore interim maintenance granted in such a suit is liable to be set aside. Other ground raised by Mr. Bharika is that maintenance is already granted in the proceedings u.s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and as such there was no necessity to grant interim maintenance. 2. If the petitioners so desired to raise an objection to the tenability of the suit, it was very much permissible for them to file an application before the trial court. However, it does not appear that an application for interim maintenance is resisted on the ground that suit is not maintainable. 3- Since the present petition arises out of interlocutory orders, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. In so far as contention regarding interim 2 maintenance granted in criminal proceedings is concerned, the petitioner would always be at liberty to get an adjustment of the said amount of Rs.800/- in the amount which is directed to be paid in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to warrant interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp3289.09