ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3764 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3764 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3764 OF 2008 Mr.Vijay Dattatray Yenpure ...Petitioner Vs. Ms.Seems Vijay Yenpure ...Respondent. Mr.H.P.Vyas for the Petitioner. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 5th August, 2008 : 5th August, 2008 : 5th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the impugned order, the family court at Pune, granted interim maintenance to the Respondent @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. This order was passed in an application filed by the Respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act-1955 in a proceedings initiated by the Petitioner for dissolution of marriage. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent was already granted an ( 2 ) amount of Rs.8,000/- towards interim maintenance in a proceedings filed at her instance under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005 and therefore, again the Respondent could not have claimed maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act-1955. Mr.Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the Respondent has not challenged the grant of maintenance of Rs.8,000/-p.m. under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005. 4. Though by the impugned order an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., by way of interim maintenance was granted in favour of Respondent, however, the amount of Rs.8,000/- granted to the Respondent in a proceeding filed by her under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005, is directed to be adjusted. In effect, the Petitioner is liable to pay only excess amount of Rs.2,000/- in pursuant to the impugned order. 5. The family court in paragraph No.11 of the impugned order has observed that the Petitioner runs permit room at Pune. It is further observed that Petitioner owns residential house at Dhankavadi. ( 3 ) Besides this, Petitioner also owns landed property. In view of the above observations no fault can be found in the impugned order granting maintenance effectively @ Rs.10,000/- so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.V. (R.V. (R.V. MORE, J.) MORE, J.) MORE, J.)