* 1 * W.P.8173.2009 28.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8173 OF 2009 Mrs. Manisha Madhukar Satam ..... Petitioner. V/S. Shri. Madhukar Akaram Satam .........Respondent * * * * * * Mrs. Manisha Satam, petitioner in person. Mr. Ganesh Sovani, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 28 October, 2010. P.C. : 1. The petitioner-wife files this petition to challenge correctness of the order dated 17.03.2008 passed below Exhibit-1 in Regular Darkhast no. 57 of 2006 in Special Civil Suit No.233 of 2001. The respondent is the husband. 2. The petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.233 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan under Section * 2 * W.P.8173.2009 28.10.2010 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for maintenance for herself and her two children i.e. son Manish and daughter- Medha. At the time of the filing of the suit itself, both the children were admittedly major. Later, at the instance of the petitioner, Special Civil Suit No.233 of 2001 came to be transferred from the Kalyan Court to Thane Court and has been renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 526 of 2006. By the ad- interim order dated 02.05.2002, the trial court had granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the petitioner and her two children. Her application for interim maintenance was finally decided on 22.07.2003 by which order, the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner filed execution proceedings being Regular Darkhast No.69 of 2006 (9 of 2003), 58 of 2006 (11 of 2003)and 57 of 2006(16 of 2003), pursuant to the orders passed in which the respondent has deposited amounts at different points of time. By the order impugned in this petition, Regular Darkhast No.57 of 2006 was disposed off which was for recovery of * 3 * W.P.8173.2009 28.10.2010 maintenance amount due till 21.07.2005. The respondent claimed that he had satisfied the decree of maintenance fully, though he is not liable to pay maintenance to the children, as they had already waived/abandoned their claim. 3. I have heard extensive submissions of the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The impugned order refers to the earlier orders passed below Exhibits-85 and 86 taken out by the petitioner in the same execution proceedings. That order records that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.1,70,500/- while disposing off the application at Exhibit-90. The order further observes that the petitioner, was entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,17,500/- towards maintenance till 21.07.2005 which included the maintenance towards the children. It further records that till 11.01.2008 she had received a sum of Rs.2,00,500, Rs.10,000/- vide Exhibit-131 and Rs.17,000/- vide Exhibit-136. With the three payments, the amount due under the execution proceedings stood satisfied. The order also notes that the * 4 * W.P.8173.2009 28.10.2010 petitioner has already filed execution proceedings for the subsequent period i.e. from 22.07.2009 till 22.11.2007. With these findings, the petitioner’s darkhast proceedings came to be disposed off. 5. The petitioner disputes receipt of sum of Rs.1,70,500/- as recorded in the impugned order. She however does not dispute the observations made below Exhibits-85 and 86 about receipt of the amount by her. She has not challenged the order below Exhibits-85 amd 86. Unless the observations in the order below Exhibits-85 amd 86 are challenged, this court will not be able to accept the dispute raised by the petitioner as regards the receipt of that amount. Similarly, the total amount received by her till 11.01.2008 of Rs.2,00,500/- and Rs.17,500/- has to be accepted as the same is borne out by the record. Hence, I find no substance in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]