1 WP-9152.09.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9152 OF 2009 Ranjana Dyandeo Chopdar : Petitioner versus Anusuya Anandrao Desai & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Dhananjay D Rananaware for the Petitioner. Mr. Pramod J Pawar for the Respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 to 9 & 12. Mr. Rajesh More for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 4/9/2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karad by which the Application­ Exhibit 33 for interim maintenance filed by the Petitioner i.e. the Original Defendant No.12 in Special Civil Suit No.28 of 2008 came to be rejected. The said suit has been filed by the Respondent No.1 herein for partition and possession of the joint family property. The Petitioner herein is the Original Defendant No.12 in the said suit. The Petitioner filed an application as stated above for interim maintenance pending the suit. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. The trial Court has observed that the Petitioner i.e. the Original Defendant No.12 is residing at her marital house, that her husband has sufficient landed properties, and that her husband is doing business in Grain Market, Karad and Malkapur. The trial Court has further observed that the original Plaintiff is not in possession of the entire landed properties. In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for 2 WP-9152.09.sxw rejecting the application of the Petitioner i.e. Original Defendant No.12 for interim maintenance are unexceptional and do not warrant any interdiction at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1976 Mh.L.J. 82 in the matter of Sushilabai Chootelal Gupta v/s. Ramcharan Hanumanprasad Vaishya and anr. In the said judgment this Court has held that an application for interim maintenance is maintainable in a suit for partition, however, the party would have to prove that she has no independent source of livelihood. No such case has been made out by the Petitioner in the present case. The trial Court has observed that the Petitioner husband has sufficient landed properties and he is doing business in Grain Market at Karad and Malkapur. Ultimately if the suit is decreed, the Petitioner would stand to get her share in the ancestral properties. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]