IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No 1636 of 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No 6060 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MAHESHWARKUMAR PRATAPRAY RAVAL Versus KANAKBEN MAHESHWAR RAVAL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. First Appeal No. 1636 of 2003 MR GIRISH M DAS for Petitioner No. 1 MS NITA M PATEL for Petitioner No. 1 MS ANU S VERMA for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date of decision: 26/09/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS) Admit. Ms. Anu Verma, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of admission. 2. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the order dated 17/10/2002 allowing the Family Suit No. 481 of 2001 filed by the respondent u/Ss. 10 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. By the said judgment the learned Judge of the Family Court, Ahmedabad, allowed the application filed by the respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the judgment and order was passed ex-parte as the appellant could not remain present and appear before the Court and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the trial Court. 3. The Family Court has directed the appellant to pay Rs.1200/= p.m. to the respondent-wife for her maintenance from the date of the order and over and above the said amount, the appellant is also directed to pay Rs.650/- each for the maintenance of daughter Niharika and son Sandeep. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant has deposited Rs.15,000/= in compliance with the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel Ms. Anu Verma, after taking instructions from the respondent, who is present in the Court, submits that the respondent has no objection if the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the Family Court provided the amount deposited by the appellant is paid to her. In view of the consent given by the respondent, we feel that the request made by the appellant deserves to be granted. The Family Court, in our opinion, would be proper Court who can resolve the dispute amicably between the parties and since the appellant did not remain present for any reason, an opportunity is required to be given to him. In view of the above, we allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the Family Court. The amount of Rs.15,000/= deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be paid forthwith to the respondent. We also direct that till the Family Court decides the application for interim maintenance, the appellant shall pay Rs.1500/= p.m. [Rupees one thousand five hundred only] regularly for the respondent and two children. It is made clear that this amount shall not be treated as the order of interim maintenance. It will be open for the respondent to apply for the interim maintenance and the Family Court can independently decide the interim maintenance application on the material that may be produced before it, without in any manner being influenced by this order. Appeal is accordingly allowed. As the main appeal is allowed, Civil Application for stay is also disposed of accordingly. [ KSHITIJ R. VYAS, J.] [ AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.] * Pansala.