1 WP 4600.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4600 OF 2011 Navnath S/o Venkatrao Basude Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Mane Jawalga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.: Latur. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Sau. Babita W/o Navnath Basude Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mane Jawalga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.: Latur. At present R/o : Tupadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 2. Om S/o Navnath Basude Age : Minor, Occ. Nil, R/o : Mane Jawalga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.: Latur. Through Natural guardian/mother Sau. Babita W/o Navnath Basude Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mane Jawalga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.: Latur. At present R/o : Tupadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 4600.2011 - [ J ] Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for the Resp.Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The respondents have filed Suit U/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the said Suit, the present respondents also filed an application for interim maintenance. The trial Court awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 as interim maintenance during the pendency of the Suit. The defendant has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Vibhute, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 WP 4600.2011 - [ J ] the Court has not considered the Say filed by the petitioner nor considered the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist and he has no independent source of income. Solely relying on the submissions made by the present respondents, the Court has passed the impugned order. 5. Mr. D.J.Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court has taken into consideration all the attending circumstances and the facts on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The present respondents have averred in detail the source of income of the present petitioner and based on the same, the impugned order has been rightly passed. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. 7. The Court was dealing with an application for interim maintenance during the pendency of the Suit. There was absolutely no concrete material on record for the Court to arrive at definite conclusion. No doubt, the respondents deserves to be granted maintenance pendente lite for their survival. The Court should have taken into consideration all these 4 WP 4600.2011 - [ J ] aspects. The Court while passing the order, has not considered the Say filed on the ground that the same is not read and recorded. The Say was also required to be considered. In the normal circumstances, I would have remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to decide the same after considering the Say of the petitioner, but as the matter is pertaining to the interim maintenance and the respondents are also in need of immediate solace, I pass the following order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and in stead I modify the same. The present respondent no. 1 shall be entitled for the interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and the respondent no. 2 who is a tender child of eleven ( 11 ) months will be entitled for the interim maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of the order passed by the trial Court. The petitioner shall pay the said amount to the respondents within the period of three ( 3 ) weeks from today. The payment of the said amount is condition precedent. In case, the petitioner fails to pay the amount as directed by this Court, the present order shall stand set aside and the impugned order shall be restored. The respondents are allowed to withdraw the said amount. The petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 regularly till the decision of the Suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably 5 WP 4600.2011 - [ J ] within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4600.2011 - [ J ]