1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1091 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. P.F.Patni, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. N.B.Narwade, Counsel for Respondent nos. 1 & 2. ........................ [ CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. ] DATE :20th AUGUST,2009 1. Heard Mr. P.F.Patni learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. N.B.Narwade learned counsel for respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/original defendant challenges the Order dated 17/12/2008 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Paithan below Exh. 13 in R.C.S. No. 200 of 2008. The Respondent/original plaintiff filed Suit for injunction and separate possession in 2 respect of 1/3 share of the plaintiffs out of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The total suit property is 1 Hector 49 R. During the pendency of R.C.S. No. 200 of 2008, respondent/original plaintiff filed application below Exh. 13 and claimed interim maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 5000/- per month respectively from petitioners/original defendants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner states that the trial Court failed to consider the yield of the suit land. Not only that, the respondent /original plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to show that the income from the suit property is near about Rs. 1,50,000/- per year. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondents are entitled for interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to the original plaintiff no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the original plaintiff no. 2. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent states that Respondent no. 1 is of 14 years child and Respondent no. 3 2 is widow. They have no source of income except suit land. 4. I have gone through the Order dated 17/12/2008 passed by trial Court. At the time of passing impugned order, the trial Court has considered the 7/12 extract of the land. On the basis of 7/12 extract, the trial Court held that the disputed land is irrigated land and cash crops like cotton, the crop of horticulture sweet lemon is taken by petitioner from 60 R. land. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere the impugned order dated 17/12/2008. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. Consider the age of petitioner no. 1 i.e. 70 years, Civil Judge (J.D. ), Paithan is directed to dispose of R.C.S. No. 200 of 2008 within eight months from the receipt of writ of this Order. [ K.K. TATED, J. ] knp/WP1091.09