(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2011 Vivekanand s/o. Yashwantrao Waghmare, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Church Road, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, .. Petitioner District : Latur. (Original defendant) versus Akshar w/o. Vivekanand Waghmare, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Rohidas Nitnaware, Dhor Galli, Nilanga, .. Respondent Taluka : Nilanga, Dist. : Latur. (Original plaintiff) ....................... Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The contention is, the petitioner / husband cannot be blamed for non-service of summons. The learned Counsel points out that on the date on which his evidence was closed, the service report was also not received. 3. The matter is filed by the respondent / wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner / husband is paying his monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/-. The same stage i.e. for serving witnesses of the petitioner / husband continues from 6-10-2010. The trial court has, thus, waited for more than three months and thereafter passed the impugned order. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked to show bona fides by depositing amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards payment of costs to respondent / wife. However, the learned Counsel is not in a position to make any statement without instructions. 5. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this (3) jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp803