:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2008 Shilpa Dushyant Kamalgiri ..Appellant Vs. Dushyant @ Raju Nayan Kamalgiri ..Respondent Mr. M.S. Karnik for appellant. Mr. Kuldeep Patil i/by Mr. Prashant Badole and Mr.Jeera Joseph for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. Dated: July 18, 2008. Dated: July 18, 2008. Dated: July 18, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . We have heard Mr. Karnik the learned counsel for the appellant-wife and we have noticed that the impugned decree of divorce is a consent decree and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, an appeal is not maintainable. . Mr. Karnik has invited our attention to the order dated 27/3/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 1843 of :2: 2008. It appears from the said order that the impugned decree was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2008 but when the petition was called out for hearing on admission, it was stated that the instant appeal is pending and, therefore, the learned counsel was permitted to withdraw the petition. . The appellant’s remedy may be somewhere else but certainly this appeal is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed as such with liberty to the appellant as is available in law. . Civil Application No. 85 of 2008 does not survive and same shall stand disposed as such. (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)