1 WP1632.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1632 OF 2010 Mr. Bharat Gorakh Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Shobha Bharat Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. M.A. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Tajane for Respondent 1. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th MARCH 2011. P.C. :- The Respondent herein had filed a Suit in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati being Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 1996. The said Suit was decided by the said Court and by order dated 13th September 2004, the said Court granted maintenance to the Respondent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 29th February 1996. The Respondent filed another Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barshi being Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2007 for claiming maintenance at an enhanced amount. That Suit was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barshi by Judgment and Decree dated 4th August 2009 and the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.6,000/- by way of maintenance to the Respondent from the date of the filing of the said Suit. Orders 2 WP1632.10.sxw regarding adjustment of the amount were also passed. This order dated 4th August 2009 has been challenged by the Petitioner by filing Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2009. The said Appeal is pending in the Court of District Judge -1, Solapur. The Petitioner herein had filed an Application for stay at Exhibit 7 of the order dated 4th August 2009. That application was decided by the learned District Judge -1, Solapur by order dated 19th January 2010 and he has directed that the execution of the Judgment and decree as regards maintenance passed in Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2007 is stayed on condition that the Appellant should deposit 3/4th of the amount i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month from the date of the Suit till the disposal of the Appeal. This order dated 19th January 2010 is challenged in this Court by this Writ Petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides at the stage of final hearing of this Writ Petition. It was sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that when one Suit was filed for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a second Suit for the same relief could not have been filed by the Respondent. According to him, second Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2007 was not maintainable and therefore, the learned District Judge should have stayed the order of maintenance. He also submitted that looking to the salary earned by the Petitioner, the amount of interim maintenance granted is on a higher side. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuted the said arguments. 3 WP1632.10.sxw 3. The question as to whether the Judgment and decree dated 4th August 2009 is bad or otherwise is pending before the learned District Judge -1, Solapur in Appeal No. 194 of 2009. It would not proper for this Court to decide at this stage as regards maintainability of Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2007. The only question is whether the learned District Judge-1, Solapur was right in arriving at the figure of Rs.4,500/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent till disposal of the Appeal. 4. The Petitioner has been paying sum of Rs.3,000/- per month pursuant to order dated 13th September 2004 as mentioned aforesaid. It is to be noted that the said order was passed way back on 13th September 2004 and it was for the period February 1996 onwards. The learned District Judge-1, Solapur in my view has considered the relevant dates and rise in prices and has arrived at a proper figure of Rs.4,500/- to be paid during the disposal of Appeal. Needless to mention that whatever amount of maintenance which will be paid by the Petitioner pursuant to order dated 19th January 2010 shall be subject to the result of the Appeal and subject to finalization of accounts. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that there is no need to interfere in the order dated 19.1.2010. 4 WP1632.10.sxw 6. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the Petition :- (i) The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that appropriate orders be passed directing District Judge-1, Solapur to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 194 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner. The request is reasonable. The District Judge-1, Solapur or any other Judge before whom the Appeal is pending is directed to dispose of the said Appeal preferably by 31st August 2011. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)