(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the interim order passed by the family Court, Pune below Exhibit-5 in P. A. No. 213/2003 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. l. OOO/- per month as in-terim alimony to the respondent wife, pend-ing final disposal of her petition for restitu-tion of conjugal rights.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respond-ent are not living together for a period of over 30 yrs. and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by respond-ent wife mala fide only with a view of claim-ing alimony. The learned counsel submit-ted that the main petition for restoration of conjugal rights suffers from delay and latches and therefore, it is liable to be dis-missed. Assuming that the original petition is liable to be dismissed that would not bar the Court from granting interim alimony. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage act, the Court is entitled to pass an order of alimony even when the original petition is dismissed. If the Court is competent to pass an order of alimony even at the time of dis-missal of the petition, I see no reason why court cannot grant an interim alimony dur-ing the pendency of the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not likely to succeed in the main petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner fur-ther submitted that the respondent has suf-ficient means of maintaining herself and she is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Mangala Products. This aspect has been considered by the trial Court which has been held that the petitioner had not proved that the respondent is carrying on business in the name and style of Mangala products and earning Rs. 4. 000/- to Rs. 8. 000/- per month as alleged by the peti-tioner. At the inter locutory stage, I am not inclined to interfering this finding of fact particularly when the petitioner had not pro-duced any evidence that the respondent was carrrying on business in the name and style of Mangala Products.