1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2005. Dhanraj Mahada Partale ... Petitioner. Versus Sau.Hausabai Vankat Partale and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.N.K.Tungar, advocate holding for Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr. counsel for Respondent No.6. Mrs.P.B.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.1 - absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. ] 2. None for the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 filed suit for recovery of 2 maintenance allowance for herself and her daughter. The suit is decreed. The charge of the maintenance allowance is created on the properties which are mentioned in the claim clause of the plaint. The p0etitioner, who is the original defendant No.2, is brother of the husband of the plaintiff No.1/Respondent No.1 herein. He raised objection that he is not liable to pay the maintenance allowance personally because only the husband could be made liable and if recovery is not made from the husband then it could be done by attachment of the undivided share of the husband or by taking other recourse as may be permissible under the Law. The objection of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order dated 2.8.2005, rendered on the application (Exh. 58) in the proceeding of Regular Darkhast No. 13/2002, I am satisfied that there is error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Civil Judge considered the word "defendants" as 3 used in the final order of the decree and, therefore, and came to the conclusion that even the petitioner is liable. As a matter of fact, it was open to the petitioner to seek amendment in the final order in respect of the word "defendant No.1" by invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court or Executing Court U/s 152 of the C.P.C. This is to be done in the interest of justice because the word "defendants" seems to have been used due to clerical or typographical mistake. In any case, the members of the Joint Family can not be personally held liable for payment of the maintenance allowance U/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This being the legal position, the impugned order is set aside with direction that the petitioner may not be personally held liable to satisfy the decree regarding recovery of the money though the execution may proceed against the properties on which the charge is created. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp699705 4