(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6378 OF 2010 Bhaskar s/o. Dada Gaware, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shirasgaon, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Abasaheb Bhaskar Gaware, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shirasgaon, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. 2. Pramilabai Bhaskar Gaware, .. Respondent Age : Major, nos.2 to 7 deleted. Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. 3. Narmadabai Vamanrao Thorat, Age : 67 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Vadgaon Pan, Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. (2) 4. Sumanbai Bhimraj Lahare, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Wakadi, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. 5. Smt. Gayabai Jagannath Bhange, Age : 63 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Vadgaon Pan, Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. 6. Nanda Dinkar Yadav, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Shirasgaon, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. 7. Ratnaprabha Rajendra Patil, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. ....................... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Autade, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 to 7 deleted. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. K.B. Autade, for respondent no.1 / caveator. 2. Adv. Mr. Bedre seeks leave to delete respondent nos. 2 to 7. This court had issued notice to present respondent no.1 and hence respondent nos.2 to 7 are allowed to be deleted. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 4. The petitioner / original defendant no.1 has challenged the order dated 25th March 2010, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shrirampur, below Exhibit 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 23/2009, thereby allowing the application filed by respondent no.1 / original plaintiff for grant of interim maintenance. 5. The trial court has granted interim maintenance to respondent no.1 / son of the petitioner under the provisions of (4) Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to Adv. Mr. Bedre, there is no finding that said applicant (present respondent no.1) is not in a position to maintain himself. He further contends that property with the petitioner is not joint family property and as status and entitlement of respondent no.1 is in dispute, such an interim order could not have been given. 6. Adv. Mr. Autade contends that the petitioner has performed three marriages. He further states that respondent no. 1 is not well educated and, therefore, does not have any employment. Respondent no.1 is, therefore, dependent upon the joint family property only for his sustenance. According to him, in this situation, impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. Prima facie it appears that respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) is about 25 years old. His education and status in life is not on record. In any case, in the impugned order, the trial court has not looked into it. In this situation, order granting interim maintenance is unsustainable. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 25th March 2010, passed by (5) learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shrirampur, below Exhibit 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 23/2009, is quashed and set aside. (ii) However, respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) is given liberty to move application with necessary pleadings for the said purposes. If such application is moved, the trial court shall consider the same at the earliest and in any case, within a period of three months after its filing and pass appropriate orders upon it without getting influenced by its earlier orders. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6378