1 wp-8231-8615 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Writ Petition No.8231 of 2010 Smt.Kashish Arjun Rohra & anr. ... Petitioners v/s. Smt.Nirmala Parasram Rohra & ors. ... Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.8615 of 2010 Smt.Nirmala Parasram Rohra & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Smt.Kashish Arjun Rohra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.J.S. Chandnani for Petitioner in WP No.8231 of 2010. Mr.Nitin V. Gangal with Mr.S.H. Joshi for Res.Nos.1 to 3 in WP No.8231 of 2010 & Petitioners in WP No.8615 of 2010. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6th December, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.Both these Writ Petitions are filed challenging an order of interim maintenance passed in a suit for partition. The daughter-in-law of a joint Hindu family, upon the death of her husband, has claimed partition of 2 wp-8231-8615 the property. She has two children. She is the first natural and legal guardian of the children. She has locus to apply for partition of the joint Hindu family properties and for her own maintenance. The two applications are under two separate and distinct provisions of law. 3.She has shown various properties of the HUF. It would be for her to prove that those were HUF properties. Two of the properties are admitted to be HUF properties. There is, therefore, an HUF which has some properties. Further properties, if any, claimed by her would have to be proved by her. 4.She has been granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. She claimed that that is insufficient. The amount of maintenance that would be granted to her would be dependent upon the earnings as well as the properties of the family. She claimed Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs. 7,000/-. It is impossible to compute a precise figure of interim maintenance to be paid to her. 5.Her father-in-law has challenged the payment of interim maintenance, essentially on the ground that even under the Domestic Violence Act she has been granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. That order has been separately challenged. 3 wp-8231-8615 6.Counsel on behalf of the father-in-law states that he has paid/deposited Rs.28,000/- and Rs.20,000/-, totalling to Rs.48,000/- by way of maintenance. He may claim credit for that amount. However, in view of the consideration in the suit the amount of interim maintenance granted does not deserve to be interfered with. 7.There are two properties, one in the name of her mother-in-law and her husband and the other in the name of the mother-in-law and her sister-in-law. The daughter-in-law resides in one of these properties. The property is purchased upon mortgaging the flat to a bank. EMIs are to be paid. The father-in-law, who is present in Court through his Counsel, undertakes to pay the EMIs so that the Securitisation Act proceedings are not resorted to by bank. The undertaking is accepted. 8.The father-in-law claims that schedule of the HUF properties is not given and the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code are not complied and the suit deserves to be dismissed. The father-in-law may take out such proceedings as he is advised in the trial Court itself for dismissal of the Suit or rejection of the Plaint. Until that is done, the interim order has to be obeyed. 4 wp-8231-8615 9.The wife has also taken out an application under the Domestic Violence Act for maintenance. 10.The interim amount of maintenance would have to be paid by the father-in-law but once each month. The amount of maintenance already ordered to be paid has to be considered whilst determining maintenance payable under any other application under any statute. 11.Rule is accordingly granted. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)