- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2007 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.84 OF 2007 Dr.Kanha Vijay Singru. ...Appellant (orig.respondent) vs. Sou.Priyamvada Kanha Singru ...Respondent (orig.petitioner) --- Mr.Nitin M.Apte & Veena Rahirkar, for Appellant Mr.A.B.Avhad, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 20th February,2008. DATED: 20th February,2008. DATED: 20th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This is an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default. Normally we would have restored the appeal. But looking to the conduct of the applicant-appellant, in our opinion, the appeal does not deserve to be restored. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Family Court by which the Family Court has granted divorce in favour of the wife of the applicant. The trial Court has also directed the - 2 - applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as permanent alimony and maintenance for minor daughter right from 28.2.2003. The family Court on the basis of evidence before it has held that the ornaments lying in the locker are streedhan i.e. property of the wife and has made an order for delivery of that property to the wife. The appellant had appeared before the family Court. He has filed his written statement, but thereafter, he remained absent with the result he has not cross examined any witness of the wife nor led any evidence. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant states that the appellant does not challenge the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court. The appellant also does not challenge the decree of permanent alimony passed by the trial Court. The fact is that though the appellant does not challenge the decree, he has not paid the amount of maintenance, he is also not willing to pay the amount of maintenance. Therefore, we put it to the learned Counsel appearing for appellant that as the appellant does not challenge the decree of maintenance and as he has not paid maintenance from the year 2003 and he does not propose to pay maintenance even in future, assuming that the ornament is his property the wife should be allowed to retain it towards maintenance. But even that - 3 - suggestion was not accepted by him. The appellant has come out with a totally unbelievable case that as he was persuading his higher studies in Medicine and that thereafter he is wandering throughout the country in search of job, even today he is not earning anything. Thus, he admits that he abandoned his wife and minor child. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant shows that the appeal filed by him is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court. He deserves no indulgence at the hands of any Court. The civil application is therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (V.M.Kanade, J.) ---