1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.9551 of 2009 Pradeep T. Datwani ..Petitioner Vs. Mansi P. Datwani ..Respondent Mr. J.P.Cama, Sr. Counsel i/b Ms. Tauben F. Irani for Petitioner Mr. R.T.Lalwani for Respondent CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 14th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Petitioner and the Respondent are husband and wife. They are involved in a protracted lis, consequent upon their failed marriage. This Writ Petition arises from two orders passed by the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, with regard to a printout, that the Petitioner has produced before the Court, showing the court that the Respondent-wife had booked an Airline ticket to spirit away their daughter to Los Angeles, USA. The Learned Judge directed the Cyber Cell as well as the Airline in which the ticket is stated to have been booked to make 2 certain inquiry and give certain reports. The Cyber Cell has submitted a report in terms of the letter of the Airline, Lufthanza, stating about the booking which was made for the flight details mentioned therein. 2.The inquiry is however, not completed. The author of the booking is not known. The Cyber Cell could have made that inquiry independently. That inquiry was to be made on the Website shown in the booking itself, which has not been done. The husband has been directed by the Family Court not to leave this country until the inquiry is over. Since the inquiry is not over and who made the booking is not known, the husband would have to satisfy the Court who made the booking from the documents that he himself produced. 3.It is seen that, the parties have gone full length litigating about one booking. Mr. Cama on behalf of the husband concedes that the inquiry is not worthwhile. Mr. Lalwani on behalf of the Wife accepts that the parties may leave the lis relating to the booking at that. If that is done, the order of injunction restraining the husband from leaving the country for his business purpose or to wind up the affairs of his business, would come to an end. 4.The wife apprehends that, if the husband is allowed to 3 leave the country, he would not return, in view of the large amount of debt by way of arrears of maintenance, that the husband has not discharged. Aside from the order of interim maintenance, pending the Divorce Petition filed by the wife, the further maintenance amount is granted upon the decree of divorce being pronounced. That order of maintenance has become final. It has never been challenged by the husband. 5.The husband in his separate petition has been allowed access. The order of access also shows the payment of maintenance. That amount of maintenance is lesser than the earlier amount of the interim maintenance granted to the wife for maintenance of child, of the parties. The husband has paid that amount. 6.The husband may not return to India, if allowed to go out of the jurisdiction of this Court. The earlier amount of maintenance, which has remained in arrears, has to be paid by the husband if he is to be allowed to leave the country. 7.The initial order of interim maintenance was Rs. 25,000/-, payable from September 2005 until the date of the decree passed on 19.03.2008, which is for 30 months. It is the amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs. Thereafter, upon passing of the decree, the same amount of 4 maintenance has been directed to be continued to be paid. This was until the husband paid the further amount each month after he obtained the order in his own petition for custody and access of his child. That is from March 2008 to August 2008. That was a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs. 8.After the modified order was passed in the husband s petition, the husband has admittedly paid the maintenance for his child as directed. Hence a sum of Rs.9 lakhs is otherwise shown to be in arrears. 9.A sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs would be the reasonable amount required to be paid by the husband before he is allowed to leave the country by vacating the earlier order of injunction passed by the Family Court. Hence the following order: a)On deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs in this court and informing the Advocate for the wife in that behalf, the husband shall be allowed to leave the jurisdiction of this Court and travel abroad. b)The amount deposited shall be invested by the Registrar, Judicial-I, of this Court in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in a Nationalised Bank, 5 initially for a period of 37 months in the name of the child of the parties. c)The Registrar, Judicial-I shall allow the Respondent-wife, who is the mother of the child to withdraw the interest that accrues from the FDR, for the maintenance of the child. d)The Registrar, Judicial-I shall reinvest the FDR from time to time until the child completes her school education in India (Std.X). The amount on maturity of the FDR or upon completion of the schooling of the child shall be handed over to the Respondent-mother, which shall be used for the further education of the child by her. e)It is clarified that, this order has not modified the decree for divorce which has been passed by the Family Court and the maintenance order therein. The Petitioner shall be entitled to agitate his Petition for setting aside that decree. f)The similar injunction passed against the Respondent restraining her from leaving the 6 jurisdiction of this Court or going abroad, is now vacated. The wife shall be entitled to take the child abroad only after obtaining permission from the Family Court, after notice to the husband. g)Respondent-wife shall be entitled to be given the passport of the child, which is stated to have expired. She shall renew the passport and deposit the same in the Family Court within three months from taking away the passport from the Court. h)The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. i)The Learned Judge may take up the applications or Petitions filed by either party for disposal in due course. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)