FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearance, Court’s of Coram, appearance, Court’s of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and orders or directions and orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. K.K. V. Kurup for the Appellant. CORAM : V.G.DAGA & CORAM : V.G.DAGA & CORAM : V.G.DAGA & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 21/09/2004. DATED : 21/09/2004. DATED : 21/09/2004. ......... P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. During the course of the hearing we repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how his application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, especially, at the instance of the major son, is maintainable. However. the learned counsel for the appellant failed to reply our query and requested for adjournment. We do not see any justification for grant of request made by the learned counsel for adjournment, especially, after having examined the impugned order and the law for the time being applicable. 3. So far as the question of jurisdiction of the family court is concerned, the Family court is right in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application in question, since Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 is not applicable to a person who is major. The application was rightly rejected by the Family Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V. C. DAGA, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)