1 WP 5618/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5618 OF 2010 Alok C. Sethia .. Petitioner V/s Deepika Alok Sethia .. Respondent Mr. Rahul More i/b Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19 May 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment. 3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against the respondent in the Family Court at Mumbai. He filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and his cross examination commenced on 12 January 2007. Thereafter he made an application for 2 WP 5618/10 withdrawal of the marriage petition with liberty to file fresh petition on the same subject matter. Leave was refused. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 4777 of 2009. By an order dated 5 December 2009 while confirming the order of refusal of leave, this Court permitted the petitioner to apply for amendment of the original pleadings and directed that if an application for amendment was made within 4 weeks, the Family Court shall decide the said application. The Court further directed that the hearing of the main marriage petition shall be deferred till the decision of the amendment application. The petitioner did not file any application for amendment within 4 weeks. However, he made an application for amendment of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Obviously that was not permitted and that could not have been allowed by the trial court. Thereafter he applied for amendment of the marriage petition and prayed for condonation of delay in making the application for amendment as permitted by the order of this Court dated 5 December 2009. The trial court refused to condone the delay. That order is impugned in this petition. 4. In para (iv) of the order dated 5 December 2009, this Court 3 WP 5618/10 has observed: “It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to file application as aforementioned, within the time stipulated, the Family Court shall proceed to hear the main petition and dispose it of on merits.” Since the time limit was prescribed by this Court, the Family Court which is subordinate to this Court obviously did not have a power to extend the time. Appropriate course of the petitioner was to make an application to this Court for extension of time. The Family Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and/or extension of time. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)