IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6398 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6398 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6398 OF 2007 Smt. Paramsundari w/o Harihar Mishra ] .. Petitioner Versus Harihar Shivnath Mishra ] .. Respondent Mr. K.K. Malpathak for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bhatt for the respondent. CORAM: S.B. MHASE, J. DATED: 08TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The order dated 14th June, 2007, passed by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, below Exhibit-5 from the Special Civil Suit No.170 of 2005 has been challenged in this Petition. That was an interim application in a proceeding instituted by the petitioner -wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In Exhibit-5, injunction in respect of certain properties was claimed, so also maintenance was claimed. Injunction in respect of the properties was rejected and that is not being challenged : 2 : before this court. The only challenge is in respect of the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month which the respondent is directed to pay till the disposal of the suit. The quantum of maintenance is being challenged by the petitioner-wife on the ground that the respondent owns several properties. However, those properties have not been considered by the trial court. It has transpired during the course of arguments that in the trial court no documents of the properties were produced by the petitioner-wife. Therefore, the trial court, considering the age of the respondent being 73 years and his liabilities to the second marriage etc. coupled with the liability of the petitioner, granted the petitioner-wife maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. What is interesting to note is that even while granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, the income of the respondent-husband was not evaluated but taking into consideration the overall picture of the family, Rs.1,000/- has been granted by the trial court. 3. Even before this court, an attempt has been made to show that the respondent is possessed of several properties. This court by the order dated 11th October, 2007, granted leave to the petitioner-wife to produce additional documents showing income of the respondent- husband. Inspite of the fact that such an opportunity : 3 : has been offered to the petitioner-wife, the petitioner-wife produced only one document in respect of a godown showing that it is in the name of the respondent- husband. However, she has not produced any document on record to show what is the income from the said godown so as to enhance the amount of maintenance and, therefore, even at this stage also the case remains as it was before the trial court. Considering all these aspects, what this court finds is that the trial court has properly considered the material on record and has thereafter arrived at the conclusion. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court so that this court can step in and intervene in the said order of the trial court. 4. The matter is without any merits and it is hereby rejected. At the final hearing of the application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the petitioner-wife may lead appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the respondent- husband is possessed of the several properties as alleged and may also prove the income from the said properties. Sd/- [ S.B. MHASE, J. ] [ S.B. MHASE, J. ] [ S.B. MHASE, J. ] : 4 :