1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2831 OF 2009 Madhukar Satam .. Petitioner Versus Mrs.Manisha Satam .. Respondent Mr.Ganesh Sovani with Pankaj Das for petitioner Mr.Ramesh Dube - Patil i/b. M/s.Ajay Misar & Co. for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd April 2009. P.C. . This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Judgement Debtor/ applicant who had moved an application (Exh.48) in Special Darkhast No.117 of 2007. 2. That special Darkhast application was filed by the respondent claiming execution of an order granting interim maintainance in a suit filed by her under section 18 of the Hindu 2 Adoption and Maintainance Act. The suit is pending being R.C.S.No.233 of 2001 and now numbered as 526 of 2006. The interim maintainance order was made on 22nd July 2003. 3. The grievance of the petitioners’ Counsel before me is that the Court below has erred in partly allowing the application. The application should have been allowed in its entirety and the Regular Darkhast ought to have been dismissed. The amount of maintainance claimed by respondent has been paid and rather she has been over paid. The respondent has misled the Court inasmuch as she has claimed maintainance for herself as also for the children who were not minors as falsely alleged by her. In these circumstances, the application for revocation of Darkhast was filed. The Court below has granted it by raising the attachment on the immovable property but has erred in continuing the attachment of movables on the basis that the petitioner is in arrears of 3 Rs.58,000/- as on the date of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent’s Counsel that there is no substance in this petition. There is a finding of fact which has been rendered on the basis of materials produced and when the amount is due and payable, the respondent cannot be made to run from pillar to post for recovery. This is ultimately a Interim maintainance sum and would be subject to the final orders in the suit. There is no prejudice to the petitioner. If the petitioner has paid the amount he should still satisfy the court below or else he should pay the amount as quantified in the Court’s order and only then, the order on maintainance application can be marked satisfied. 5. Having perused the order under challenge with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for parties so also perusing relevant materials I am 4 of the opinion that the learned Judge has proceeded to treat this application as one made under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The Court below has adverted to all the materials and has in fact raised the attachment on the immovable property. However, the Court below while restricting the amount of maintainance has also taken into account the payments made from time to time. A sum of Rs.1,74,000/- was claimed by the respondent but the court below has after taking into consideration the payments made from time to time restricted the sum to Rs.58,000/-. Mr.Sovani would urge that a further sum of Rs.20,000/- has been deposited. 6. Considering that the order substantially grants all reliefs as claimed and even restricts the quantum now, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The order under challenge is equitable and balances the rights of 5 parties. As and when petitioner produces proof of payment of the sum of Rs.58,000/-, I have no doubt in my mind that even the attachment on moveables would be raised. The petitioner can move the trial Court and point out the payments made including the one referred to above. The trial Court to then consider the request of raising attachment on moveables and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner is at liberty to file relevant documents soas to demonstrate the payment made or deposit of amount in court from time to time. Equally, the respondent can claim future maintainance under the trial court’s order and all such pleas shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Petition disposed of. No costs. 6 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)