Prakash S/O Pandhari Patharkar And Another v. Annakala @ Sushila Wd/O Bhikaji Patharkar And Others

1 wp1504.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1504/2019 Prakash S/o Pandhari Patharkar & anr.

..VS..

Annakala @ Sushila Wd/o Bhikaji Patharkar & ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H.R. Gadhia, Advocate for the petitioner(s) CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 28/02/2019 Heard.

In the civil suit filed by the respondent no. 1 (aged about 69 years) praying for decree for partition, separate possession and mesne profit, the respondent no. 1 - plaintiff had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 be directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to her towards interim maintenance. This application is decided by the trial Court by the impugned order. The learned trial Judge has directed the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 - plaintiff. After examining the documents placed on record and going through the impugned order, I find that the conclusions of the learned trial Judge summed up in para no. 9 of the impugned order, cannot be faulted with, as they are based on proper appreciation of the material on record.

2 wp1504.19 I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As the civil suit is of 2010, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose the civil suit till 30/09/2019. JUDGE Ansari