.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.J.M. Puranik for the applicant. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 20TH MARCH 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr.Puranik, the learned counsel for the applicant. We have also perused the following judgements cited by him before us. (i) Vanmala v/ Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar, AIR 1999 Bombay 388 (ii) Shri Ram Swaroop v. Smt. Janak, AIR 1973 Punjab & Haryana 40 (iii) Rekha Bhaskar Kadam v. Bhaskar Arjun Kadam, 2002 (2) ALL M.R. 642 (iv) P.S. Devarajan v. R. Geetha, - 2 - AIR 2000 Madras 440 2. We have noted that while admitting F.C.A. No.23 of 2006, there is no conditional order granting interim stay to the impugned order passed by the Family Court. The applicant wife had approached the Family Court by filing M.J. Petition No.A-566 of 2000 and the said petition was allowed by directing the respondent husband to resume cohabitation with the applicant. The said order is under challenge in F.C.A. 23 of 2006 which has been admitted by this Court. Interim maintenance amount, as directed by the Family Court, has not been paid. That by itself cannot be a ground for us to dismiss F.C.A. No.23 of 2006. The applicant’s remedy may be before the Family Court. 3. Hence, the application is rejected and we clarify that this order will not come in the way of the applicant to approach the Family Court with necessary application. - 3 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)