1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 269 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 197 of 2007 Capt. Bibhas Kanti Pal .. Applicant versus Maitreyee Bibhas Pal .. Respondent ... Mr.Dinesh Parmar for the applicant. Mrs.Manjula Rao for respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 9th January 2009 P.C.: . We have noted that in the admitted appeal filed by the appellant i.e. Family Court Appeal no.197 of 2007, the decree of declaration is challenged and the decree is in two parts. First part is for a declaration that the present respondent 2 was married with the applicant on 9th May 2002 and it was a valid marriage and it continued to subsist whereas the second part is for payment of maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. . As far as the first part is concerned, we do not find any reason to stay the decree for declaration. When the marriage has been declared to be valid and subsistent, the respondent is required to pay the maintenance more so when he is not cohabiting with her. Hence, this application is rejected. . However, if the parties are negotiating on an amicable settlement, this order rejecting the civil application would not come in their way for such a settlement. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J)