* 1 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8173 OF 2009 Manisha M. Satam ...... Applicant/Petitioner V/S. Madhukar A. Satam ..... Respondent * * * * Mrs. Manisha M. Satam, applicant in person. Mr. Ganesh Sovani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 28th April, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This Civil Application is filed by the petitioner for setting aside orders dated 28th October, 2010 by which the two petitions were disposed off and for restoration of the petitions. She also seeks directions to the respondent to pay her a sum of Rs.51,000/- and a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- towards maintenance. 2. The applicant is the wife of the respondent. She filed the above Writ Petition No. 8173 of 2009 to challenge the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan on execution proceedings filed by her in Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 2001. In * 2 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011 the order on this petition, it has been observed that the petitioner is required to challenge the orders below Exhibits-85 and 86 filed in the Darkhast proceedings in order to challenge the observations in the order regarding receipt of certain amounts by her. The applicant instead of taking steps to challenge the orders has sought to file the present application. 3. The other Writ Petition No. 5286 of 2010 was filed to challenge three orders passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane on three applications preferred by her in Special Civil Suit No. 526 of 2006 for custody of the two children, maintenance on their behalf and for enhancement of the maintenance. The Trial Court by its reasoned order had rejected her applications which rejection stands confirmed by the order on the writ petition. The proceedings between the parties are maintenance proceedings in which the petitioner had sought maintenance not only for herself, but, also for her two grown up children. As seen from the record, the two children of the parties, son-Manish aged 30 years and daughter- Megha aged 28 years are Engineers working with Wipro and Technimont Company respectively. Both are receiving good salary and are financially completely independent. They have also been staying alongwith the respondent for the last 6 years. These facts have been confirmed by this Court on 8th April, 2011 when both the children were requested to attend * 3 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011 the Court in order to ascertain the above facts and also in view of the allegations made by the applicant in the proceedings at several places that the respondent has forcibly taken away the children and they have been subject to various vices like consumption of liquor and drugs etc. 4. The separate orders dated 20th October, 2010 passed on the above writ petitions are reasoned orders passed after hearing both the sides. This application had initially appeared before another Bench, which was the Regular Bench for writ petitions. By the order dated 4th February, 2011 the application was removed from the board of that Bench with an observation that since the writ petitions had been disposed off on merits of the matter, the present Civil Application is nothing but an attempt to seek review of the order. The application was therefore placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The petitioner appeared in person before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. By the order dated 11th March, 2011 the application was directed to be placed before this Court by treating it as an application for review. It appears that it was submitted by the petitioner before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice that the maintenance amount sought by her for the children was for the period when the children were with her. Therefore, the order dated 11th March, 2011 observes that since the applicant did not have legal assistance, she could not make necessary prayer in her petitions to claim maintenance for the past period when the * 4 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011 children were with her. In view of the submission, I have perused the proceedings once again. It is clear that no such prayer could have been made in the petitions by her for the first time in this Court, in view of the pendency of proceedings in the trial Court. Since the writ petitions were filed to challenge the orders passed by the trial Court, this Court could not have gone beyond the scope of the original proceedings and the orders. 5. Coming to the grounds set out in the application for setting aside the two orders, the same read as follows :- The above two orders in the above 2 writ petitions were passed “ hurriedly in one day only against me, although I have put on records all the documents and evidence in support of my arguments.” In W.P. No. 5286 of 2010 under Spl. Suit No. 526 of 2006, Exhibit “ the custody of the children is requested which was not considered.” The Respondent tried plan to kidnap my two major children kill “ them and to kill me, the petitioner. As well as ill tread them forced them to lead immoral life and indulge in bad habits, such drinking alchohole, Cokin, Gurd and torture physically and detain the children till 1.30 a.m. in the night and threatened them to kill then if they do not listen them, opposite respondent. Similarly, a black magic was also used upon them a detailed affidavit has been mentioned in Exhibit No.161 in the above Special Suit. Prior to that this a police complaint was lodged on 25.7. 2005, a copy of * 5 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011 which is also attached to the above Special Suit No. 526 of 2006 as well as with Writ Petition in the High Court.” Bare perusal of these grounds is sufficient to hold that there is no case made out by the applicant for review of the order. Hence the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 6 * C.A. 236.2011 28.4.2011