: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2009 Vivekananda P. Vyas ... Petitioner V/s. Daya @ Daksha V. Vyas ... Respondent Mrs.Manjula Rao i/b H.P. Vyas for Petitioner Mr.P. Gidwani for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 15TH JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 15.4.2009. By this order, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintainance from the date of the earlier application i.e. from November, 2005. He has also been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. The petitioner and the Respondent were married on 26.11.2004. The petition for annulment of the marriage was filed by the petitioner on 4.7.2005. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent on 23.11.2005 for interim maintainance. That application was later withdrawn by the respondent on 22.1.2008. Immediately thereafter a fresh application was filed by the respondent for interim maintainance. : 2 : That application has been allowed from the date of the earlier application. While deciding the interim maintainance application the learned Judge has considered the income of the petitioner which was brought on record by him as well as by the respondent. The learned Judge has adverted to the income which the petitioner was securing from his coaching classes as well as by working as a supervisor in a garage. 3. On the basis of the material before the Court, the Court has awarded the aforesaid amounts by way of interim maintainance. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application could not have been allowed from the date of the earlier application but only from the date when the present application was filed. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted for the reason that while withdrawing the earlier application, liberty was granted to the respondent to file a fresh application and immediately within a month of the withdrawl of the earlier application, a second application has been filed. Apart from this, it is seen from the record that the application was withdrawn as certain pleadings were not on record. In these circumstances, it was allowed to be withdrawn. 5. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court requiring interference from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Petition is rejected. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount which is already deposited.