First Appeal no.820 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUTRE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2008. APPELLANT: Dr.Waman s/o Nilkanth Parvate, aged Major, Occu: Nil, r/o Gram Panchayat Quarters, Navargaon, Tq. Sindewahi, Distt.Chandrapur. : VERSUS : RESPONDENTS: 1. Dr.Smita w/o Waman Parvate, aged 39 years, OccuL Nil, r/o N-6, Nagpalli Layout, Reshimbagh, Nagpur. 2. Master Chetan s/o Waman Parvate, aged 14 years, Occu: Nil, r/o N-6, Nagpalli Layout, Reshim-bagh, Nagpur. 3. Master Wasu s/o Waman Parvate, aged 8 years, Occu: Nil, r/o N-6, Nagpalli Layout, Reshimbagh, Nagpur. Respondents 2 and 3 being minors by their natural guardian mother respondent no.1. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar,Advocate for the appellant. Mrs.S.C.Deo, Adv. for the respondents. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- First Appeal no.820 of 2008. 2 CORAM: A.P.LAVANDE AND P.B.VARALE,JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.P.Lavande,J.) 1. Heard Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. S.C.Deo, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith. 4. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and order dated 29th September, 2007 filed by respondent in Petition No. C-32/2004 before the Family Court, Nagpur by which the family court has granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of respondent no.1 and Rs.6000/- each in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3. 5. Indisputably, the petition filed by the petitioners was First Appeal no.820 of 2008. 3 dismissed at one stage by the Family Court against which the first Appeal No.656 of 2005 was preferred, which was disposed of by order dated 3rd April, 2007 and the matter was remanded to the Family Court to decide the same on merits expeditiously and in any case within period of six months. It is the grievance of the appellant that after the remand, no fresh notice was served on him and as such the impugned order came to be passed ex parte. The fact that no notice was served on the appellant has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, learned counsel submits that the appellant ought to have appeared before the Family Court in view of the order dated 3rd April, 2007 passed by this Court and therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, while passing the order dated 3rd April,2007 no date was fixed for appearance before the Family Court and as such Family Court was expected to serve fresh notice on the appellant, which was admittedly not done. In view of this position, the First Appeal no.820 of 2008. 4 appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Family Court, Nagpur is directed to dispose of the Petition No.C-32/2004 expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from the date of appearance. The parties personally or through their counsel shall appear before the Family Court on 20/02/2009 at 11.00 a.m. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. Chute