wp2591.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.2591/2011 Smt. Priti W/o Shailesh Soni (Verma) -vs- Shailesh Pralhad Soni (Verma) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 29.08.2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 27/09/2010 partly rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance. It appears that the trial Court had refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner and her son were already receiving a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court, however directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum to the petitioner towards litigation and travelling expenses. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Though it was the case of the petitioner that the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- from Shriram Finance Company, the respondent wp2591.11.odt 2/2 had pleaded that he was getting a salary of Rs.7,300/- per month. A salary certificate for the month of June, 2010 was filed on record. The trial Court considered that the respondent was the only son of his aged parents and his father was suffering from some illness and he was required to spend some amount for his father every month. In this background, since the petitioner and her son were getting a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards maintenance in the other proceedings, the trial Court rightly rejected her application so far as her claim for grant of monthly maintenance was concerned. The trial Court rightly granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner towards litigation and travelling expenses. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE