1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2009 Nagorao s/o. Madhavrao Deshmukh Age 74 years, Occ. Service (retired) R/o. Jalkot, Dist. Latur .. Petitioners Versus 1] Jayashri d/o. Jagorao Deshmukh. 2] Smt. Kamalbai w/o. Nagorao Deshmukh. .. Respondent. --- Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. PER COURT :- 2 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th May, 2009, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) Udgir,in Regular Darkhast No. 22/2001. 2] The suit was filed by the respondents and one Aruna, bearing R.C.S. No. 381/1990, in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Udgir, for maintenance. The suit came to be decree on 6th July, 1993. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The appeal was remanded and on remand, vide order dated 11th February, 2000, the suit was again decreed and the petitioner herein was directed to pay the maintenance. Since in accordance with the decree passed by the learned trial court, the maintenance was not paid, the respondents preferred an execution petition bearing R.D. No. 22/2001. In the aid proceedings, an objection was filed by the present petitioner contending therein that he had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. It was also contended that the respondent No.1 herein, had married one Khushal Ahmedsab Wadiwale. He has further contended that the Civil Suit NO. 245/2006 was filed against him by his son from the second wife, for partition. The said objection was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3] Shri Dharurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the learned Executing Court has not considered the objections raised by the present petitioner in the correct perspective and hence, the objection raised by the present petitioner ought to have been allowed. 3 4] Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the contrary submits that the petitioner has not obeyed the decree of the court and as such, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5] In so far as the first contention raised in the petition is concerned, it has been found by the trial court that maintenance has been granted @ Rs. 600 p.m to the decree holders/ respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and maintenance of Rs. 750/- was granted to the decree holder/respondent NO.3 from the date of filing of the suit. It was, therefore, found that the amount which the petitioner has deposited was not sufficient to meet the claim made in the Execution Proceedings. In so far as the contention regarding suit filed by the son and second wife is concerned, the suit in which maintenance is claimed, is decreed in the year 2000 whereas, the suit filed by the son of the petitioner was in the year 2006 and , therefore, filing of the second suit would not come in the way of the respondents in claiming maintenance. 6] In so far as the contention regarding marriage of the respondent No.1 is concerned, it was found that the witnesses on which the petitioner relied, had not supported the case of the petitioner in their cross examination and had said that they had only heard that the respondent NO.1 had married and, therefore, the contention in that regard was also found to be without substance. 4 7] In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the trial court, to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-