1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.243 of 2008 In Family Court Appeal Stamp No.19580 of 2008 Abhay Mhaskar Applicant Vs. Meenal Mhaskar Respondent Mr.V.A.Sugdare for applicant. Mr.Rajan Jayakar with Ms.Namrata Jayakar i/b. Jayakars for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. January 6, 2009. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing Family Court Appeal under Stamp No.19580 of 2008 and the application is filed by the husband. 2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the parties was performed on 18/12/2000 at Vile Parle, Mumbai and at the time of marriage the husband was staying in U.S. From the wedlock a son by name Soham was born on 21/11/2001. The applicant in the year 2002 submitted an application to the U.S. authorities to issue him, his wife and child a Greencard and on 31/8/2004 he received the Greencard for himself 2 whereas for the child he received the same on 21/10/2004. The respondent - wife was issued Greencard on 22/8/2005. While in U.S., the respondent - wife submitted an application seeking divorce and custody of the minor child before the Circuit Court for the Country of Washtenaw, State of Michigan. As per the order dated 16/10/2006 the Circuit Court (Family Division) granted a decree of divorce and the custody of the minor child was awarded to the plaintiff - wife until further order of the Court. 3. It appears that the applicant filed M.J. Petition No.D-35 of 2006 before the Family Court at Mumbai and this petition was filed on 21/8/2006 i.e. before the custody order was passed by the U.S. Court. While the said application before the Family Court was pending, the respondent - wife in her reply pointed out that a decree of divorce was passed by the Competent Court in U.S. on 16/10/2006 and the said order already had granted the custody of the minor child to her until further orders. The Family Court, therefore, by its judgment dated 29/9/2007 held that in view of the order passed by the competent Court in the United States of America the petition was not maintainable before it and the order of the Circuit 3 Court, Family Division in USA was binding on the applicant. We have noted that challenge to the said order passed by the Family Court is raised for the first time by filing Family Court Appeal under Stamp No.19580 of 2008, on 21/8/2008. 4. We have gone through the justification for condonation of delay as set out in para 5 of this application and except stating that the learned Advocate did not take steps and subsequently she joined some company, no further details have been provided by the applicant in support of this application. The respondent - wife has filed reply and opposed this application for condonation of delay. We are also not satisfied by the statement made before us that the financial condition of the applicant did not permit him to take due steps in time so as to approach this Court. Hence this application must fail. 5. Even otherwise we have noted that the applicant is not remedyless when it comes to the custody of his minor son and the order passed by the Circuit Court, Family Division in the United States of America on 16/10/2006 is clear and it does not take away the 4 right of the applicant to apply for variation in the said order. 6. Hence the application is rejected. Consequently, registration of the appeal is refused. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)