1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 51 of 2009 IN CROSS OBJECTION NO. 3675 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 124 of 2007 Naresh Punjabi Zala ....Applicant Vs. Leela Naresh Zala ....Respondent Mr. S.G.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Ashishchandra Rao i/b. M/s. M.P.Vashi & Assoc. for respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A..SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 15, 2010 P.C. By this Application, the husband prays that the operation and execution of the impugned Judgment dated 7th June, 2007 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1520/2004 be stayed in respect of requirement of paying maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to the minor child. In the alternative, it is prayed that amount be reduced commensurate with the ability of the applicant-husband to 2 pay the same. It is not in dispute that the applicant-husband was represented before this Court and after hearing him, the Court vide order dated 12th September, 2007 confirmed the ad-interim order granted on 27th July, 2007 in favour of the appellant-wife. The said order reads thus:- “1. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that respondent-husband has already married. The subsequent marriage would be subject to the decision of this Appeal, as the respondent has taken the decision to remarry at his own risk. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that insofar as arrears of maintenance is concerned, he will remit all arrears of maintenance in installments i.e. he will continue to pay the maintenance for the current month September-2007 alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards the arrears on or before 30-9-2007 till all arrears of maintenance stands cleared and would continue to pay maintenance regularly commencing from the month of October-2007 on or before 10th of each month. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, ad-interim order passed by this Court on 27-7-2007 stands confirmed. 4. Liberty to move the Court in case any default is committed by the respondent-husband in paying maintenance. ” 2. Having regard to the fact that this order was passed after considering all aspects of the matter, it is not open for us to re-examine the same issue afresh at the instance of the Applicant-husband. As no changed circumstance is noticed 3 from the averments made in the Application, especially after passing of the above order, hence, rejected. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)