1 wp3072-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3072 of 2011 Dr.Punam Mahendra Navare ..Petitioner v/s. Dr.Mahendra Navare ..Respondent Mrs. Manjula Rao for the petitioner . Mr.C.S.Savithri for the respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th May, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives notice of admission of the petition. 3. As rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent taken up for hearing. 4. The respondent herein has filed petition for divorce in the Family 2 wp3072-11.sxw Court at Bombay i.e. Petition No.A-2672 of 2010. The petitioner herein filed application before the learned Judge of the Family Court praying that if at all any application filed by the respondent is required to be replied, the petitioner be permitted to file the reply duly signed by the Power of Attorney Holder Dr. Jawahar Bijlani as the petitioner is likely to be out of India. This application came to be adjourned by the learned Judge of the Family Court by Order dated 14.2.2011. The learned Judge has passed the following Order: “Heard petitioner in person and Ld. Counsel for Respondent. This application will be considered after the respondent complies with the order of producing the child before the Court. Till that compliance, application is kept pending.” 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that on account of this order the petitioner is prohibited from dealing with the applications which may be filed in future and that according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner as the child is not produced the child before the Court, such order is passed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the submission by contending that the learned Judge was right in passing the impugned 3 wp3072-11.sxw order. 6. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Whether the petitioner has produced the child or not, could not have been linked while deciding the application mentioned above. The learned Judge should have decided the application and passed an order. The learned Judge erred in putting a condition precedent viz. Production of child before the court for deciding the matter. If the petitioner has not complied with certain orders of the court, it was open for the respondent to take out appropriate proceeding to get justice in that behalf and it was also open for the learned Judge to pass an appropriate order. By the impugned order, the respondent is prohibited from defending the proceedings in a court. In my view, the order dated 14.2.2011 is required to be set aside and the application is required to be granted as prayed for in paragraph 3 of the said application. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid the following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER i) Order dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned Judge of the 4 wp3072-11.sxw Family Court below Application dated 27.1.2011 filed by the petitioner is set aside. ii) The application dated 27.1.2011 is hereby granted as set out in paragraph 3 of the said application. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]