1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C. A.O 1606/2010 in MCA No. 1123/2010 CI. Shweta Chinmay Paradkar Vs. Dr. Chinmay Krishnarao Paradkar =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 23/12/2010. At the request of Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, this civil application is taken up for hearing immediately. The office is therefore directed to register the same. This application is for stay to the effect and operation of the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by this Court in Misc. 1123/2010. This Court had rejected the application of the petitioner for transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Akola to Amravati and while deciding such application an observation was made in last para that taking the view of the fact that the respondent-husband is required to pay an amount of Rs. 16,000/- per month and the applicant-wife is dragging the litigation, the Family Court was directed to expedite the matter and to decide it as far as possible within a period of three weeks. Learned counsel submits that on 22th December 2010 an application was moved before the Family Court at Akola for grant of adjournment by further period of six weeks to obtain appropriate orders for transfer of a matter from the Apex Court. The Family 2 Court has rejected the said application by an order dated 22.12.2010 on the ground that in view of the directions given by this Court to conclude the case within a period of three months, the time cannot be granted. Hence, this application has been moved. The contention of Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent-husband has not paying an amount of Rs. 16,000/- per month but the amount which is being paid is only of Rs. 8000/- per month and the same has not been regularly paid. He submits that the arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 8000/- per month have already been cleared by the respondent and hence the applicant wants to challenge the order passed by this Court on 20th December, 2010 by approaching the Apex Court. The application cannot be granted. There is no application for review of the order dated 20th December 2010 nor the applicant has prayed for grant of such time when the matter was decided on 20th December, 2010. The application has already been dismissed. There is no question of granting time. The application is therefore rejected. JUDGE Ambulikar.