1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3532 of 2009 (Smt. Bakulabai D. Deshmukh and othyers v. Mrs. Jyoti S. Deshmukh and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.P. Thakare, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 27 th August, 2009 This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge on an application Exhibit 24 filed before him in Regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 2007. The applicants were widow and grandsons of respondent No.1. The learned District Judge granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of them during the pendency of the appeal considering the fact that the petitioners are in possession of 4 hectares and 77 ares of land bearing gat no.67, which was in cultivation, as can be seen from Exhibit 43 in the record of the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had been dragged 2 to this Court in Writ Petition No.1447 of 2008 and since in that writ petition the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.30,000/- there was no occasion for the respondents herein to claim any interim maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioners overlooks the directions of this Court in the last paragraph of the judgment in Writ Petition No.1447 of 2008, which read as under : “Mrs. Deshpande then made a prayer that the petitioners should be allowed to make an application for grant of maintenance pending decision of appeal in question. She is granted liberty to make such application and the appellate court is expected to decide the said application. If made, considering the impact of the orders below Exs.5 & 10, in which the total amount of Rs.30,000/- is ordered to be deposited. The appellate court is expected to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” In view of this, the respondents were justified in making an application for maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the land is barren and there is no income from the field. The learned District Judge has observed that the land, which is 4 hectares and 77 ares in area, is in cultivation, as was seen by 3 him from 7/12 extract at Exhibit 43 in the record of the lower Court. Thus, the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is far from true. The amount of interim maintenance granted by the learned District Judge is not exorbitant. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl