1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. M-170 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2008 Ganesh D. Gurav. ... ... Applicant. Versus Suman G. Gurav. ... ... Respondent. Mrs. Manjula Rao for the Applicant. None present for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010. P. C. : Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. Considering the fact that the respondent admitted the contents of the divorce petition filed by the applicant husband on the basis of which divorce was granted by the Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 15th May, 1998, the assertion made by the applicant regarding paternity of the child being accepted by the respondent wife the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not have discarded the same on the finding that the decree was nonest. The declaration that the consent decree passed against the respondent dissolving marriage between the parties was nonest could be made only by the Court of competent jurisdiction. So long as the said decree operates, it 2 was not open to the Family Court in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discard the same. 3. Inspite of service, none appears for the respondent. No reply has been filed to counter the assertion made in the present application. Moreover, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the applicant is already admited in terms of Order dated 16th July, 2008. The Court passed the conditional order, which it is stated have been complied with. 4. Considering all these aspects, reliefs in terms of prayer clauses 9(a) and 9(b) as prayed are granted. The same shall operate during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The civil application stands disposed of, accordingly. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2008 Ganesh D. Gurav. ... ... Applicant. Versus Suman G. Gurav. ... ... Respondent. Mrs. Manjula Rao for the Applicant. None present for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010. P. C. : The appeal is already admitted. The requirement of printing of paper-book is dispensed with on condition that the Appellant shall file additional paper-book consisting of all the relevant pleadings, evidence and documents which were before the Lower Court and are likely to be relied upon by either side during the arguments. The documents to be filed shall be supported by affidavit to the effect that the same were the part of record before the lower court. That be done within four weeks from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non- prosecution without further reference to the Court. As soon as the paper-book is filed, the Appeal be proceeded, provided, there is no other office objection, and it 4 be included in the final hearing list as per its turn. Filing of roznama is dispensed with as the same will be available in the original record at the time of hearing. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)