[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2623 OF 2008 Anil Rangnath Chavan & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Meera Shivaji Chavan & Anr. .... Respondents Shri Ganesh K. Gole for the Petitioners. Shri G.M. Savagave for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 3-12-2007 whereby the application filed by the respondents for maintenance is allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay to the respondents herein Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance from 28-11-2005. Admittedly, the respondents’ suit for partition has been decreed and the appeal filed by the respondents is pending. Pending the suit for partition, the petitioners moved this application in the appeal against the order whereby her suit for maintenance was dismissed. 2. There are clear averments made that she has no source of income and to maintain herself and her minor daughter she requires certain amount regularly. The Court, in fact, on Exhibit-12 has already passed some [2] order and granted a limited relief, restricting it to the litigation expenses and S.T. fares but no order was passed, as prayed in the present application. 3. The finding given by the Court below while rejecting the application is that once suit for partition is filed and the same is pending for final adjudication, there is no question of filing such maintenance application by the person like the applicant who is admittedly the widow of one of the brothers in the family and her claim of partition unless adjudicated finally. It is difficult to accept the case of the respondents to say that she is not at all entitled for maintenance. A widow with a minor definitely needs regular income to maintain herself and her daughter. The property of her late husband if is the subject-matter of the partition suit, pending the decision she is definitely entitled for some maintenance, at least out of the share of her husband. In this background, I am of the view that such application needs to be allowed as the respondents are entitled for the maintenance pending the decision in the suit/appeal for partition. However, it is made clear that whatever amount she is entitled pursuant to this order will be subject to adjustment if ultimately the suit/appeal for partition is allowed and if she gets the share in the suit property. [3] 4. Taking all these into account, I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, six weeks’ time is granted to make the payment. The parties are at liberty to settle the matter. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp2623.8 sjs/D8wp2623.8 sjs/D8wp2623.8