[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2007 JAVED S/O. LATE HAMID KASAM JUGARI ... PETITIONER. VS. SMT. PRAVEEN JAVED JUGARI ... RESPONDENT. MR. ARSHAD HAINDADY FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. O.R.TIWARI FOR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 15, 2008. : February 15, 2008. : February 15, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. Rule; by consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed impugning the Order dated 17th April, 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai whereby the adjournment sought by the petitioner in a matter which is a part-heard was rejected. 3. It is observed in the impugned order that though the matter is of the year 2000, hearing is delayed due to the attitude of the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the application for adjournment and submitted that the petitioner was suffering from [2] jaundice and a medical certificate was also enclosed with his application and, therefore, sufficient cause was made out and the application for adjournment ought not to have been allowed by the Trial Court. 4. The parties herein are husband and wife and the matrimonial dispute is pending between them since the year 2000. The learned Counsel for the respondent-wife has fairly stated that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside. He, however, presses for costs. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2007, passed by the learned Judge of the 3rd Family Court, Mumbai is set aside. However, in the facts of the case, I do not deem it fit to grant costs as the petitioner-husband was suffering from jaundice and medical certificate to that effect was also annexed to the application. 6. However, looking to the fact that the matrimonial dispute is pending since the year 2000, the petition before the Family Court is required to be disposed of expeditiously. I was inclined to grant four months time for disposal of the said proceeding by the Family Court; however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is likely to be out of [3] India for more than a month. It would be appropriate therefore, that the petition be disposed of finally by the Family Court preferably within a period of six months from today. The parties are directed to co-operate. 7. Rule accordingly. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]