(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Family Court Appeal No. 32 of 2009 Shri Yuvraj Bhaginath Wahul, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Service, .. Appellant/ R/o. Jaibhimnagar, Ghati, Original Town Hall, Aurangabad. respondent. versus Mrs. Vaishali Yuvraj Wahul, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Suryabhan s/o. Dhondiram .. Respondent/ Khotkar, Original H.No. 1-12-87, Gautamnagar, Ghati, appellant. Aurangabad. ....................... Mr. R.P. Dhakane, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 8TH MARCH 2010 (2) COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. This is an appeal preferred by the husband, calling in question an order passed by the Family Court, directing the appellant to return Stridhan articles to the respondent wife. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the value of the articles would be in the range of about Rs. 10000/-. 3. On the last date, when the matter was listed, adjournment was sought on the ground that the parties would resolve the dispute amicably. The learned Advocates were also to ascertain as to whether the parties are agreeable to divorce by mutual consent. It does appear that the relations of the parties are strained. 4. We have perused the impugned order where under the directions are issued to return the Stridhan articles. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that some of the articles are already returned in execution proceedings. 6. In that view of the matter and having regard to the (3) facts and circumstances, we are of the clear view, that no interference with the order passed by the Family Court is called for. 7. Hence, the Family Court Appeal is summarily dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/32fca