1 WP.6928/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6928 OF 2010 Mrs. Pooja Shailendra Bhatia ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Shailendra Harish Bhatia ...Respondent Mr. Vivek Kantawala with Ms. Martha Butala and Ms. Sneha Nanandkar i/b. Vivek Kantawal & Co., for the Petitioner Mr. Uday Shankar Samudrala for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. The only correction which is apparent on the face of the record to be made in this Writ Petition is essentially the correction of the word “order” at the end of the second paragraph in the operative part of the impugned order dated 1 st September 2009. The impugned order has granted the interim maintenance. The amount of maintenance is considered on 2 WP.6928/2010 merits. The Petitioner has no dispute with the amount on merits. The amount is however directed to be paid from the date of the order instead of from the date of the application, as is the rule. 3. The application was taken out on 12 th May 2008. The order is passed on 1 st September 2009, after about 15 months. The 15 months delay is due to exigencies of Court work and/or the adjournments granted upon applications of the parties made pending the application to be heard. Consequently, when an application is decided on merits, it relates to the date of application and must be effective from the date of the application. It is, in doing this, that at least the injustice done by the delay caused by the parties or by the Court is remedied at the final hearing of the application, which is disposed off. 4. Upon this premise an application for review of the order came to be moved before the learned Judge who passed the impugned order. The learned Judge dismissed the review application on a completely technical ground that it was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed and the reason of the delay was not explained and therefore, it deserved to be rejected as time barred. Such technical view in an order which was passed due to an inadvertent error of the Court itself does not behove well for the Court passing any equitable order. 3 WP.6928/2010 5. The application for condonation of delay can be made at any time. It can be made even orally. It can be taken to be made upon the Court inquiring from the parties the cause, if any, which is required to be seen. The apparent error of the Court cannot be left uncorrected, because the party who has suffered an incorrect order comes late to the Court. 6. Further the reason that it was an interim order and the same point can be adjudicated at the time of hearing is most inequitable. The interim order is required to be effectuated and obeyed pending the Petition. An order of interim maintenance is required to be obeyed from the date of the application. If the error remains, the injustice that would be done to the applicant would be to the extent of the interim maintenance for about 15 months. It is unlikely that at the final hearing of the Petition, which would be after some years, that period of maintenance would be separately and specifically granted. Courts must correct their own errors so soon as they are pointed out. This position would prevail even in any Civil Court. It would prevail with greater vigor in a Family Court. It is unfortunate that the Family Court Judge would view an equitable relief with such technicality. The impugned order is required to be interfered with and corrected. 4 WP.6928/2010 7. Hence the following order. 1. The word “order” in the operative part of the order dated 1 st September 2009 of Family Court No.6, Bandra, Mumbai shall be corrected to read “application”. 2. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)