: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.986 OF 2009 Kumud Thakkar ... Petitioner V/s. Ramesh Thakkar ... Respondent Ms.Rohini Dandekar for Petitioner Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 2nd JULY, 2009 P. C.: 1. The order passed by the Family Court on 2.8.2008 has been challenged in this petition. According to the petitioner, this order has been passed in an execution application filed by her for recovery of the maintainance amount payable to her and her two daughters. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the respondent is in arrears of maintainance to the tune of over Rs.3 lakhs. 2. According to the learned Advocate, the respondent has property which is available in Mumbai itself against which the decree for maintainance could have been executed. It is further contended that therefore there is no need to transfer the decree to Kolkata for its execution. 3. A perusal of the impugned order which is very cryptic indicates that the decree : 2 : has been transferred to the “jurisdiction of the Kolkata Court for its execution”. This order cannot be sustained since there are no details contained in the same as to why it was necessary to transfer it to a Court in Kolkata. Neither is there any indication in the order as to which Court in Kolkata the decree was transferred for its execution. Apart from this, it appears that the court has not taken into consideration that there could be properties in Mumbai itself against which the decree could have been executed. 4. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. The execution application numbered as Regular Darkhast No.233 of 2008 to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. While deciding the execution application, all issues are kept open including as to whether there is any property in Mumbai for the decree to be executed. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.