-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION REVISION APPLICATION REVISION APPLICATION NO.184 of 2006 NO.184 of 2006 NO.184 of 2006 Sujit Thakurdas Punjabi ...Petitioner vs. 1.Smt.Veena Gangwani @ Anju Punjabi 2.Master Bharat (minor) through R.No.1 ...Respondents Mr.Sandeep Katkade for the Petitioner CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 23,2007. : MARCH 23,2007. : MARCH 23,2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Petitioner who has been appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner. He states that the Petitioner is personally present in the court. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Revision Application for challenging the order dated 7th July 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan below Application at Exh-5 in Special Civil Suit No.316 of 1998. By the said order, the Petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance to the Respondents. Even if this Revision Application is allowed, it will not result in the final disposal of the main proceedings and therefore the Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for challenging the order dated 7th July 2006 is not maintainable. The Advocate for the Petitioner pointed out that an Application has already been made by the Petitioner before the trial Court for setting aside the order dated 7th July 2006. -2- 3. The Revision Application is rejected only on the ground that the same is not maintainable. However, it will be always open to the Petitioner to adopt appropriate legal remedies for challenging the order dated 7th July 2006. 4. All contentions on merits are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE