1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) NO.10780 OF 2009 Mrs.Sheetal M. Rudrawar ....Applicant V/s. Mahesh M. Rudrawar ....Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Applicant. Mr.A.S. Gaikwad for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr.Gaikwad appears for the Respondent. 2. Family Court Appeal (Stamp) No.10780 of 2009 has been filed belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. 3. As per the office note the appeal is beyond the time by 120 days. The Respondent has filed affidavit in reply and opposed the application on the ground that the delay caused has not been properly explained. It has been pointed out that the Applicant filed Darkhast Application No.59 of 2009 in the Family Court on 13.4.2009 and therefore, it is clearly implied that she was aware of 2 the impugned decree which decided the rival claims. 4. Darkhast application filed by the Applicant shall stand stayed if the maintenance amount as directed by the Family Court is deposited with the Registry of this Court and the arrears shall be deposited within four weeks. He shall continue to deposit the monthly maintenance amount as applicable for July, 2009 onwards, with the Registry. 5. However, we are satisfied that good and sufficient reasons have been made out to condone the delay and more so when the Respondent also has filed the appeals challenging the very same decree. 6. Hence the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)