1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) NO. 9578 OF 2008 KANTILAL BHERULAL JAIN .. APPELLANT Vs. DHAVAL S/o KANTILAL JAIN .. RESPONDENT Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b Vivek Kantawala & Co. for appellant Mr. Prem Gidwani for respondent CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE: 2/5/2008 P.C. . The appellant has challenged in this Family Court Appeal judgment and order dated 22/11/06 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. C-76 of 2006. The said petition is filed by the respondent herein, i.e. the son of the appellant, through his uncle. In the petition the respondent has inter alia prayed for maintenance @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the appellant. The Family Court by the impugned order directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month to the respondent towards the maintenance allowance with effect from 2 8/3/06. The said judgment and order is ex parte. 2. We have heard at some length, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Various legal as well as factual submissions have been made. In our opinion, since the impugned judgment and order is ex parte, interest of justice would be served, if it is set aside and the Family Court is directed to hear and dispose of the application within a time-frame. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant is in arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- as on 30/4/08. Considering the fact that the impugned order is ex parte, we do not want to enter into the merits of the case but, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to deposit the arrears of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the maintenance in the Family Court and permit the respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.1 lac from the said amount without furnishing security. We feel that the Family Court should invest the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in any nationalised bank on usual terms and the said 3 amount can abide by the final order that may be passed in the petition. Similarly maintenance amount also should be deposited by the appellant in the Family Court per month and that also can be similarly invested by the Family Court and that will also abide by the final order that may be passed by the Family Court. In the circumstances, we pass the following order; a) The impugned judgment and order dated 22/11/06 is quashed and set aside. We remand the matter to the Family Court. The Family Court shall then hear and dispose of the petition afresh and in accordance with law within a period of six months from 30/6/08. We make it clear that, we have not quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order on the merits of the case. All contentions of the appellant and respondent are kept open and can be decided by the Family Court in accordance with law. b) The above order, however, is subject to the appellant depositing in the Family Court a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant, who is present in the court states that a sum of Rs.1 4 lac will be deposited within 15 days from today. On such deposit being made, the Family Court shall allow the respondent to withdraw it without furnishing security. The rest of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will be deposited by the appellant in the Family Court by 30th June, 2008. c) The appellant shall deposit future maintenance amount @ Rs.10,000/- per month in the Family Court. The future maintenance will be deposited in the Family Court by 10th of every month. The Family Court shall invest Rs.1,50,000/- plus the future maintenance amount which will be deposited by the appellant in the Family Court, in any nationalized bank on usual terms. That amount will abide by the final order that may be passed in the petition. d) Office will permit the appellant to register the instant Family Court Appeal. e) Family Court Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms. f) Needless to say that in view of the above order, Civil Application No. 115 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. 5 JUDGE JUDGE