1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 6482 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2009 Mohd. Azad Shaikh ..Appellant Vs. Mrs. Sakirunissa Mohd. Azad Shaikh ..Respondent Mr. M.S. Prasad for appellant. Mr. S.C. Thatte for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. July 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Prasad the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Thatte appears for the respondent. 2. The parties were married on 2/6/1997 at Harsinghpur, District – Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh and within few months thereafter they shifted to Mumbai. The respondent approached the Family Court in Petition No. A-1216 of 2006 and prayed for dissolution of her marriage under Section 2(ii)(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. After hearing both the parties, the Family Court was pleased to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. In addition, the present appellant 2 was directed to return the ornaments and articles mentioned in the list at Exh.25 to the present respondent within one month from 10/7/2008. The appellant is aggrieved by the second part of the impugned decree dated 10/7/2008 i.e. return of the ornaments and articles as mentioned in the list at Exh. 25. 3. Before the appeal was filed, the respondent has re-married on 19/1/2009 and the appellant has given up his challenge to the decree of divorce by dissolution of the marriage. A copy of the list at Exh.25 is placed before us and Mr. Thatte, the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, stated that though the list is in two parts i.e. articles and ornaments, the articles given in the marriage ought to be returned and the respondent will not press for the return of ornaments mentioned in the second part of the list at Exh. 25. Mr. Prasad states that the articles given in the marriage are lying in the house at Harsinghpur and the respondent’s father or brother could collect all those articles as listed in the first part of Exh.25. Mr. Thatte, on instructions, states that the father will visit Harsinghpur and collect all these articles. Mr. Prasad has stated before us that those articles shall be returned to the respondent’s father as and when he visits appellant’s house at Harsinghpur. We have also noted down the undertakings of Mr. Prasad that the amount of arrears in respect of the interim maintenance, if any, shall be cleared and paid to the respondent or her father within a period of four weeks from today. On such payment of arrears, the respondent and her father undertake to withdraw the pending complaint filed under Section 498-A of IPC with the Metropolitan Magistrate’s court at Andheri. The said undertaking applies to any other cases filed in Mumbai. 3 4. With these clarifications and undertakings, the appellant does not press for the appeal on any other grounds and, therefore, the appeal stands disposed off accordingly. 5. Civil Application Nos.87 and 95 of 2009 do not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)