:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 IN IN IN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2007 COURT APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2007 COURT APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2007 IN IN IN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT PETITION NO.A-1589 OF 2004 COURT PETITION NO.A-1589 OF 2004 COURT PETITION NO.A-1589 OF 2004 A L O N G W I T H L O N G W I T H L O N G W I T H CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2008 IN IN IN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2007 COURT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2007 COURT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2007 IN IN IN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT PETITION NO.C-199 OF 2003 COURT PETITION NO.C-199 OF 2003 COURT PETITION NO.C-199 OF 2003 Arun Ganpat Mistry ....Appellant V/s. Shubhangi Arun Mistry ....Respondent ====== Ms.Manda Loke, advocate for the Appellant. Mr.V.R.Surate, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 9TH JUNE, 2008. 9TH JUNE, 2008. 9TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. On 27.8.2007 Division Bench of this court (J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed JJ) passed the following order : " On the appellant husband depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards initial expenses for litigation within a period of three weeks, issue notice to the respondent returnable within four weeks. :2: :2: :2: . We make it clear that if initial expenses as directed by this court, is not deposited, the appeal would stand dismissed without any further reference to this court for want of prosecution. . The appellant did not deposit the said amount and hence the appeals got dismissed. 2. Consequently, Civil Application No.83 of 2008 is taken out by the Husband in Family Court Appeal No.146 of 2007 and Civil Application No.84 of 2008 is taken out by the Husband in Family Court Appeal No.145 of 2007. In both the civil applications, prayer is made that the delay may be condoned and appeal may be restored to the file. 3. Three weeks time to deposit the amount expired on 17.9.2007. Four months thereafter the present civil applications are filed praying that delay of four months be condoned and order dated 27.8.2007 be set aside by allowing the appellant to deposit Rs.5,000/- (in each appeal) in this court. These civil applications were take up for hearing at the instance of the appellants’ counsel on 9.4.2008. On that day, prayer was made that office may be directed to accept :3: :3: :3: the said amount. We issued such a direction because the appellant by his conduct has put the respondent to litigation expenses. On 11.4.2008, a statement was made before us that the said amount has been deposited. We therefore directed the office to issue notice to the respondent wife. 4. On 28.4.2008, the respondent appeared through her Advocate. We passed an order directing her to withdraw the litigation expenses without furnishing security. We were informed that the appellant is in arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,30,500/-. Looking to the conduct of the appellant, we directed the appellant to deposit further amount of Rs.25,000/- to show his bonafides and adjourned the matter. However, the said amount was not deposited. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is unable to deposit the said amount. Admittedly, the appellant’s family owns a factory where plastic items are manufactured. On the last occasion, we were informed that the appellant gets only Rs.1,000/- per month. Today, we are informed that he gets Rs.15,000/- per month from the family business. :4: :4: :4: There is thus a contradiction in the stand of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has suppressed the fact that agricultural lands and other properties are owned by his family. This is disputed by learned counsel for the husband. 5. We are unable to accept the claim of the appellant-husband that he is not in a position to raise the amount of arrears and deposit it in this court. If the family owns a factory which manufactures plastic items, he can certainly deposit the arrears or atleast a part thereof as directed by us. No request is made on behalf of the appellant that he may be permitted to deposit the amount by instalments. A bold statement is made that the appellant does not have money and hence he is not in a position to deposit the same. We are not happy with this conduct of the appellant. The amount of Rs.5,000/- which was directed to be deposited on 27.8.2007 as litigation costs in each of the appeals was also not deposited by him and four months after the appeals got dismissed, he filed the present civil application for restoration of the appeals. He has :5: :5: :5: adopted a very adamant approach. It appears that he wants to put the respondent to expenses of litigation and wants to avoid payment of maintenance. Considering the steep rise in prices, in our opinion, the maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month cannot be called unreasonable. No indulgence can be granted to a person who is in such huge arrears and who refuses to abide by the orders of the court. In the circumstances, we are unable to grant the prayers made in the civil applications. Civil applications are dismissed. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J)