vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7081 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7081 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7081 OF 2008 Shashikant S. Atri ... Petitioner V/s. Jaya Shashikant Atri ... Respondent Mr.V.S. Kapse for Petitioner Mrs.Smita Telang for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The grievance of the petitioner is that although he had appointed an advocate, the Family Court had not heard him before passing the order dated 8.2.2008 on the interim application. The interim application filed by the respondent herein has been allowed and the husband, that is the petitioner herein, has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintainance. 2. The interim application was heard on 8.2.2008. An application for setting aside that order was made by the petitioner on the same day contending that his advocate was unable to attend the Court. The advocate’s junior had appeared before the Court and sought an adjournment. He has stated that certain contentions which could have been pointed out to the Court by the : 2 : advocate have not been considered by the learned Judge only because his advocate was not present. He has stated in an affidavit filed on 8.2.2008 in support of his application for setting aside the order for interim maintainance that the matter should have been adjourned in order to afford an opportunity to his advocate to address the Court, as he was a layman. 3. From the order impugned, there is no material to indicate that either the petitioner or his advocate had been recalcitrant and have not attended the matter when it was pending before the Family Court. The application for interim maintainance was filed in May 2007. Thereafter, it was adjourned and decided finally on 8.2.2008. However, the order does not reflect that these adjournments were due to either the petitioner or his advocate. In my view, therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. It must be noted here that I have not made any observations on merits of the order. The impugned orders are being set aside only in order to afford an opportunity to the advocate of the petitioner and the respondent to be heard before orders are passed on the interim application. 4. The impugned orders are set aside. The Family Court will decide the interim application afresh within : 3 : 8 weeks from today, on condition that the petitioner deposits a further amount of Rs.1 lakh in the Family Court within four weeks from today. In the event this amount is not deposited, the order which has been passed on 8.2.2008 will take effect. 5. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.