1 wp751-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPLICATION JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.751 of 2011 Sudhir Vitthalrao Shinde ..Petitioner v/s. Prerna Sudhir Shinde & Another ..Respondent Mr. Satyajit Mirajkar for the petitioner None for the respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent had filed an application for maintenance in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, being Special Civil Suit No.147 of 2007. The petitioner was ordered to pay interim maintenance. The respondent was granted interim maintenance. The Special Civil Suit was disposed of finally by Order dated 1.1.2009. The respondent no.1 is awarded maintenance of Rs.2000/- and the respondent no.2 child is awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- from the date of filing of the suit. 2 wp751-11.sxw 2. The order dated 1.1.2009 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.290 of 2009. The learned District Judge, Satara, before whom this appeal was pending has passed an Order on 13.10.2010 thereby directing that the petitioner shall deposit the arrears of maintenance to the tune of 75% within one month i.e. within one month from 13.10.2010. The learned District Judge has also directed that for the monthly maintenance 75% of the amount of maintenance should be deposited on or before 10th of every month, failing which the stay of the decree shall stand vacated. This will mean that if the Order dated 13.10.2010 is not fulfilled, the respondent wife will be free to execute the decree if there is default. This Order dated 13.10.2010 is challenged. I have extensively heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had no alternative but to admit that interim maintenance was not paid from time to time, and even after passing of the Order dated 1.1.2009 arrears as of 1.1.2009 have not been cleared off. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that as of today Rs. 47,600/- has not been paid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner objected to item No.2 of the order, namely if 75% of the amount is 3 wp751-11.sxw not paid the decree is permitted to be executed. Counsel for the petitioner contended that for non payment of arrears, or for the monthly maintenance the petitioner will have to face the execution of the decree. After having read the order as well as after having noted that the petitioner has been consistently in arrears, namely the petitioner has not paid 75% of the monthly maintenance from February 2011, it is clear that the petitioner has not complied with the orders of the court. The lady who has been awarded maintenance is deprived of the said maintenance even to the extent of 75%. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not inclined to even pay 75% of the amount. 4. In my view, the learned District Judge has applied his mind in the proper perspective and he has taken care to see that if the arrears as well as the monthly maintenance is not paid within a stipulated time, the respondent wife should be given an opportunity to execute the decree. In my view, no interference is required. Petition is dismissed. Writ to go forthwith. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]