1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.130 of 2009 In Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006 Shehnaz Mudbhatkal Applicant Vs. Arvind Mudbhatkal Respondent Applicant in person. Ms.Neeta Karnik for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. April 28, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard the applicant - party in person and Ms.Karnik, the learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. Undoubtedly Civil Suit No. No.2056 of 1995 (Petition No.B-153/2008) is required to be adjudicated upon for prayer clauses (b) to (d) as has been directed by this Court vide order dated 16/7/2008 in Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006 and if the documents sought to be submitted by the applicant in the said proceedings before the Family Court were found to be irrelevant in deciding the said proceedings, we do not 2 find any fault with the impugned order passed by the Family Court on 22/4/2009. However, the prayer for returning the R. & P. in M.J. Petition No.A-1945 of 1992 is required to be considered. 3. Hence the application is partly allowed and the Registry is directed to return the R. & P. in M.J. Petition No.A-1945 of 1992 to the Family Court at Mumbai and we make it clear that the Family Court may consider the relevance of the documents in M.J. Petition No.A-1945 of 1992 on its own merits and without being influenced by this order. If the applicant is aggrieved by any interlocutory orders, she has the remedy to challenge the final order to be passed by the Family Court on all such grounds. R. & P. be returned forthwith. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)