1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5894/2011 (GHANSHYAMDAS SANTOSHKUMAR GYANCHANDANI VERSUS DEEPALI PREM GOPLANI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shyam Dewani, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Family Court No.2, Nagpur on 31.10.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the application for review, before deciding anything else in the matter. The respondent had filed Hindu Marriage Petition before the Family Court No.2, Nagpur for grant of a decree of divorce. An application was filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue, as according to the petitioner, the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the Hindu Marriage Petition. The said application was dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioner filed an application for review of the order passed by the Family Court rejecting the application under Section 9-A. The petitioner also filed an application for deciding the application for review before deciding anything else in the matter as the respondent-wife had also applied for grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu 2 Marriage Act. The Family Court, however, by the impugned order dated 31.10.2011, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and asked the petitioner to file reply to Exhibit 5, the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if necessary. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Family Court No.2, Nagpur on 31.10.2011. The petitioner could not have filed an application for deciding the application for review before deciding anything else in the matter, specially in view of the provisions of Section 9-A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A for framing preliminary issue was dismissed and the petitioner was seeking a review of that order. The trial Court was empowered under the provisions of Section 9-A (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary pending determination of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction. Even assuming that the review application was pending or assuming that the application under Section 9-A was pending before the Court still the Family Court had jurisdiction to pass an order granting interim relief in favour of one of the parties. In the instant case, the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent, and the petitioner in stead of filing a reply to the said application, was pressing for a decision on the review application before deciding anything else in the matter. The impugned order passed by the Family Court on 31.10.2011 cannot be said to be either illegal or perverse. In such a case, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not filed a reply to the application at Exhibit 5 as the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Family Court on 31.10.2011 by this petition and since the petitioner is the resident of Canada, the petitioner would not be in a position to file a reply on 01.12.2011. The Family Court No.2, Nagpur should consider the request of the petitioner for grant of an adjournment for filing reply to the application at Exhibit 5 leniently, in the aforesaid background. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE