:1: :1: :1: HIGH HIGH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION ( ) NO. 138 OF 2005. IN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2005. 2005. 2005. Jagdeep Ishwar Mulani. ..Applicant. Versus. Mrs. Jalpa Jagdeep Mulani. ..Respondent. --- Mr. A.P.Vanarse for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.B.MHASE & S.B.MHASE & S.R.SATHE S.R.SATHE S.R.SATHE JJ JJ JJ DATE: DATE: DATE: JULY 11, 2005. JULY 11, 2005. JULY 11, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. Husband’s application for divorce has been rejected and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted in favour of the wife. Under these circumstances, we do not find it necessary to stay the impugned decree. The application is, therefore, rejected. (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.) :srp/2005/ :2: :2: :2: HIGH HIGH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF COURT APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2005. 2005. 2005. Jagdeep Ishwar Mulani. ..Appellant. Versus. Mrs. Jalpa Jagdeep Mulani. ..Respondent. --- Mr. A.P.Vanarse for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.B.MHASE & S.B.MHASE & S.R.SATHE S.R.SATHE S.R.SATHE JJ JJ JJ DATE: DATE: DATE: JULY 11, 2005. JULY 11, 2005. JULY 11, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. This matter is for admission. The husband and wife both are present. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vanarse moved a proposal for settlement to the effect that the divorce should be granted. As against this, wife who is present in the court along with the child has submitted that she does not want divorce and she is desirous of resuming cohabitation. Under these circumstances, the settlement is not possible. Hence, appeal is admitted. (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.) :srp/2005/