1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6004 OF 2008 Tanaji Pandurang Mane & Others ...Petitioners vs. Pandurang Anna Mane ...Respondent Mr.T.T.Patil for the petitioners None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard Advocate for the petitioners. This petition arises out of an unfortunate litigation between the petitioners who are the sons and the respondent who is their father. The respondent-father filed a suit for partition and separate possession against his sons by contending that he has been ousted from the joint family property. The suit was partly decreed. A preliminary decree of partition was passed. An appeal has been preferred by the present petitioners and their mother for challenging the decree. Interim relief was granted in the appeal by which delivery of actual possession on the basis of the decree of partition has been stayed. An application for maintenance was filed by the respondent father against the petitioners. In the application it was contended that the respondent was employed as a worker in the Docks at Bombay. It was contended that the amounts 2 saved by the respondent were invested by him in the suit property and at present he was getting a pension of only a sum of Rs.1500/- p.m. As he was unable to maintain himself, he respondent applied for a direction against the petitioners to pay maintenance. By the impugned order, the petitioners-sons have been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the respondent further. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that during the pendency of the suit, such application was not preferred by the respondent and therefore, the application preferred in appeal was not maintainable. He submitted that there is absolutely no material placed on record by the respondent to show that he is unable to maintain himself. He submitted that the respondent was drawing a pension of Rs.4500/- per month. 3 I have considered the submissions. An Appeal against the decree passed in a suit is a continuation of a suit. Therefore, the first objection has no merit. 4 According to the respondent-father, the petitioners- sons are enjoying the suit joint family property and therefore an occasion arose for filing a suit for partition. The present age of the respondent is stated to be 66 years. The decree for partition passed in his 3 favour is of no benefit to the respondent as of today. The partition cannot be effected in view of the interim order passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Considering all these facts, the appellate court has directed the petitioners-sons to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to their father. It is not possible to interfere with this order in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 Hence, writ petition is rejected. 6 The petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7500/- towards the costs of this petition payable to the respondent. The respondent has not appeared though he was served with the notice. In the circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs. 7500/- deposited in this court. JUDGE