1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 of 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 95 of 2009 Kanta Tejas Maun ....Applicant Vs. Dr. Tejas Knubhai Maun ....Respondents Mr. A.V. Chatuphale, advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.T. Lalwani, advocate for the respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A..SAYED, JJ DATED:- JUNE 28, 2010 P.C. Appeal is already admitted in terms of order dated 16th June, 2009. 2. Printing of Appeal paper-book is dispensed with. Instead the parties are free to file additional paper-book consisting of pleadings, evidence and documents which were part of record before the Lower Court which compilation should be supported by affidavit to that effect. That be done within twelve weeks from today, failing which Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. 2 3. As soon as the additional paper-book is filed, the Appeal can proceed for hearing as per its turn. 4. Reverting back to this Application, it is prayed that during the pendency of the Appeal, the Respondent be restrained from entering into second marriage. This Court while admitting the Appeal had already granted ad-interim relief which is operating against the Respondents. Since the Appeal takes exception to the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, in the interest of justice, the Applicant is entitled for continuation of ad-interim relief during the pendency of the Appeal. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in granting interim-relief in terms of prayer clause (a) during the pendency of the Appeal. 5. Counsel for the Respondent, however, submits that this Court while granting ad-interim relief on 16th June,2009 had clearly indicated that the Appeal itself will be decided finally, if it is ready for final hearing in all respects. According to the Respondent, the main Appeal be heard forthwith instead of the said Application. It is not possible to accede to this request. We have already given precedence to appeals arising out of matrimonial proceedings and as per the final hearing 3 list the Family Court Appeals pertaining to year 2000 till 2007 are already on the Board. We do not find any special reason as to why this matter should be given precedence over the matrimonial appeals pending in this Court since year 2000. Accordingly, this submission of the Respondent-husband cannot be countenanced. 6. As aforesaid, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). That relief will continue during the pendency of the Appeal. Application disposed of accordingly. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)