1 CP 70 OF 2007 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.70 OF 2007 IN F.C.A. NO.56 of 1998 Smt Usha Ramlal Thakarar .. Petitioner -versus Ramlal Thakarar and anr .. Respondents. Mr. V. M. Bangar, for the petitioner. Mr. P. G. Lad, for respondent Nos 1 and 2. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED: 1st April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petitioner by filing this petition alleges that the respondent has committed contempt by not complying with the order dated 31st August, 1998, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Petition No.B-86 of 1991 and Petition No. A.50 of 1992. By the said order, the petitioner’s petition is allowed and respondent husband is restrained by order of permanent injunction from preventing the wife’s entry, use and occupation of the Flat Nos 24 and 25 in Chowpatty, Tejkiran Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Mumbai. 2. As stated above the said decree is passed in the year 1998. The petitioner’s submission is that the execution proceeding to execute the said order cannot said to be 2 CP 70 OF 2007 appropriate remedy to the petitioner and therefore, present contempt petition is filed. Petitioner relied upon the judgment by learned Single Judge Sarladevi Bharatkumar Rungta -v-s Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta and anr reported in 1987(3) Bom C.R 642. 3. I do find any merit in the petitioner’s contention in view of the fact that the petitioner can execute decree by filing execution proceeding. The facts of Sarladevi’s case and the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In the case of Sarladevi, contempt was alleged of an order passed by High Court and therefore, the jurisdiction was exercised under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. In present case, it is not the petitioner’s case that the decree cannot be executed and therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)