1 MSS 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. 74 OF 2007 SANJAY BABURAO KAGILKAR .. APPELLANT Vs. SMT. SANGITA C. PAWAR .. RESPONDENT Mr. S. D. Patil for appellant CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE: 8/4/2008 P.C. . The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 6/1/07 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra. By the impugned order the learned Judge has permitted the respondent wife to withdraw the petition filed by her for divorce. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. He submitted that the Family Court should not have allowed the respondent to withdraw the petition. He submitted that the decree of Arizona Superior Court Pima County is obtained by practising fraud. The appellant was not served. The said decree is, therefore, not binding on the appellant. The learned Judge in the impugned 2 judgment has observed that the fact whether the said judgment is binding on the respondent or not or whether the said court is a competent court having jurisdiction is a totally different issue. She has further observed that the petitioner has right to withdraw the petition at any time prior to the judgment. No fault could be found with this observation of the learned Judge in the facts of this case. However, if it is the case of the appellant that the decree is obtained by practising fraud and that it is not binding on him, it is always open for him to adopt appropriate proceedings to quash it. 3. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. We however, make it clear that all contentions of the appellant are kept open. The appellant will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings to get the foreign decree set aside in accordance with law. 4. The appeal is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE