-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2011 Padmavati B. Dube. ..Petitioner. Versus The Div. Jt. Registrar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the petitioner. Mr. Shrinivas Sudhir Patwardhan with Ms. Dipti Pawar for R-3. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 15, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Respondent no.4 is the husband of petitioner. Gala No.14 belonging to respondent no.5 was leased to the son of petitioner and respondent no.4, for a premium of Rs. 2,71,000/-. The amount of premium was deposited by respondent no.4 with respondent no.5 by taking loan from respondent no.3–Co-operative society. The son of the petitioner, however, expired in the year 2002 and thereafter Municipal Council adjusted the amount of rent of Rs.42,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs.2,29,000/- is to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased son of respondent no.4 and petitioner. 3. Respondent no.3 society initiated recovery proceedings srp -: 2 :- under section 101 of the MCS Act, 1960 against respondent no. 4. Accordingly, certificate was granted. Since, same is not challenged by respondent no.4, the said recovery certificate has become final. In execution, respondent no.2 attached the amount of Rs.2,29,000/- lying with respondent no.5 under the provisions of Rule-107 of the MCS Rules, 1961. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional authority under section 154 of the MCS Act, 1960, however, same was also dismissed and therefore the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the demise of their son, the petitioner and respondent no.4 filed proceedings for obtaining Succession Certificate in the Civil Court and Succession Certificate is issued to the petitioner and respondent no.4. He submitted that therefore the petitioner has a right in the amount of premium and since there is no recovery certificate under section 101 of the MCS Act against the petitioner, her share in the said premium amount cannot be attached. I find no merit in the submission. The amount of premium was paid by respondent no.4 after taking loan from respondent no.3 society. This amount was not re-paid by respondent no.4 and, therefore, certificate under section 101 is issued against -: 3 :- respondent no.4. The amount which is attached under the orders of respondent no.2 was deposited by respondent no.4 by obtaining loan from respondent no.3. The petitioner could not show any independent source of income to support her contention that premium was paid from the amount of her Streedhan. The petition seems to have been filed in collusion with respondent no.4. The petitioner and respondent no.4, i.e., husband and wife, seems to be hand in gloves with each other to defeat 3rd respondent’s claim. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)