IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2004 Mrs.Pragati Sunilkumar Agarwal. ... Applicant. Versus. Sunilkumar I.Agarwal. ... Respondent. Smt.B.P.Jakhade for the Applicant. Ms.Madhuri Katkar-Phadake for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 15th March, 2005. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that Petition No.327 of 2001 has been finally decided by the Family Court at Pune. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant states that she has strong grievance about the manner in which the learned Judge of the Family Court has proceeded to decide the petition inspite of bringing to his notice the pendency of this application. Her grievance is that she was not permitted to engage services of an Advocate and she was not granted a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the Respondent. 3. As the petition has been disposed of, the grievances which are made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant will have to be made in appropriate proceedings and : 2 : hence I am not adjudicating upon the said grievances. 4. As the main petition in the Family Court has been disposed of nothing survives in this Application and the same is rejected as infructuous with no order as to costs. Judge.