1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 571/2010. Chandramani Hiraman Gaikwad … versus … Archana @ Madhu Chandramani Gaikwad Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Heard Shri P.C. Madkhoklar, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.D. Zoting, learned counsel for respondent. Order impugned by petitioner/father is one by which the trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent daughter. Shri Madhkholkar, learned Counsel for petitioner / father contends that respondent is major and is married to one Vijay Kawale on 05.04.2009. He argues that this marriage was not accepted by the trial Court because xerox copies was placed on record and there was no affidavit of the competent officer of Arya Samaj Mandir, where the marriage was performed. He therefore, states that at interlocutory stage the Trial Court ought to have acted upon the xerox copy. In any case he invites attention to Pursis dated 25.02.2010 and affidavit filed along with it. As per the said affidavit by Secretary, Santoshkumar Raut, respondent got 2 married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Akot on 05.04.2009 with Vijay kawale. In the alternative he argues that if the maintenance is still found to be payable by this court, the amount should be directed to be deposited every month in court and should not be allowed to be withdrawn by respondent so that at the end of the trial, the amount will be available to the petitioner / father and he will not be required to run after present respondent for its recovery. Shri Zoting, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand points out that as the issue is of interim maintenance, deposit of that amount in court and its lump sum payment at the end of the trial will not meet the ends of justice. He further states that affidavit of Santoskumar Raut, Secretary, Arya Samaj Mandir is dated 22.02.2010 and has been filed before this Court on 25.02.2010, there was no such document before the trial Court. He further points out that the respondent has on affidavit denied her marriage with Vijay Kawale before trial Court as also before this Court. Perusal of records clearly show that before trial Court, though marriage was alleged no document was produced to show such marriage. The certificate of so called Secretary of Arya Samaj Mandir is filed before this Court for the first time and respondent therefore, did not get any opportunity to meet that certificate. Even before this court and before the trial Court the respondent has denied her marriage with the said Vijay Kawale and she has claimed that she is unmarried. The trial Court has properly dealt with the issue and its consideration in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 cannot be labeled either as erroneous or without jurisdiction. No case 3 is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner states that at least proceedings for grant of maintenance before the trial court filed vide Special Civil Suit No. 23/2009 should be expedited. Shri Zoting, learned counsel for respondent has no objection. In the circumstances, trial Court shall attempt to decide the proceedings finally as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. JUDGE Rgd.