-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1469 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1469 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1469 OF 2007 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.821 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.821 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.821 OF 2006 Sou.Ranjana Brijlal Gurav ...Applicant vs. Brijlal Shravan Gurav ...Respondent Mr.Nitin Meshram h/f M/s.Anilkumar Patil for the Applicant Mr.Pramod Kathane for Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. : MARCH 26, 2008. : MARCH 26, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and the Advocate for the Respondent. The Appellant is the Appellant-Plaintiff who filed a suit for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 against the Respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the Appeal preferred by the Applicant has been dismissed by the District Court. The Second Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. This is an application for interim maintenance. 2. The Application is opposed by the Advocate for the Respondent by placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court dated 15th March 2001 in Criminal Writ Petition No.908 of 1995. He pointed out that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 was filed by the Applicant which was allowed by the learned Magistrate. In a Revision -2- Application filed by the Respondent, the said order was set aside and the Application under section 125 made by the Applicant was rejected. He pointed out that by order dated 15th March 2001, the order of the Sessions court has been confirmed by this Court. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the said order, and in view of the concurrent decrees passed on the suit filed by the Applicant, the Applicant is not entitled to interim maintenance. 3. In response to a query made by the Court, the learned Advocate for the Respondent stated that the Respondent is employed as a Peon and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. He, however, states that the Respondent has to look after his old parents and therefore, it is not possible for him to pay maintenance. 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 15th March 2001 passed by this Court shows that the order of the Sessions Court was confirmed mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the Applicant for maintenance has been dismissed. It is well settled law that the findings recorded in the proceedings under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 are not binding on the civil court. Admittedly, the Applicant is residing separately from the Respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the Applicant has any source of income. Considering the fact that the Respondent is drawing a salary of Rs.6000/- -3- per month, interim maintenance deserves to be fixed at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. 5. By an ad-interim order passed in this Application, the Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month from November 2007 onwards. The said order will continue to operate till end of March 2008 and from April 2008 onwards, the Respondent will have to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. 6. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Application is partly allowed. ii) Interim maintenance payable by the Respondent from November 2007 to 31st March 2008 will be at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. iii) From April 2008 onwards, the Respondent will pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- to the Applicant wife. The amount shall be deposited with the trial court on or before 10th day of every calendar month. iv) It will be open for the Respondent to pay the amount directly to the Applicant. -4- v) There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE