Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to Family Court Appeal No.88 of 2011 filed by Shashi Leekha against Sheila Shashi Leekha. The appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. After the judgment was pronounced, the appellant's counsel requested the court to continue the interim arrangement that was in place during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent's counsel opposed this request. The court, in the interest of justice, deemed it appropriate to continue the interim arrangement for a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice N.M. Jamdar on July 23, 2012. The judgment does not provide details of the underlying dispute or the reasoning for dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Interim Arrangement - Continuation of Interim Relief - After dismissing the appeal, the Court considered the request to continue the interim arrangement that was in place during the appeal - The Court, in the interest of justice, continued the interim arrangement for a period of four weeks from the date of the order - Held that interim arrangement to be continued for four weeks (Para 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the interim arrangement granted during the pendency of the appeal should be continued after the judgment.
Final Decision
The court continued the interim arrangement for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Interim arrangement
- Continuation of interim relief
- Family Court appeal
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 95
Family Court Appeal No.88 of 2011 with Civil Application No.217 of 2011
A.M. Khanwilkar, N.M. Jamdar
Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Amit Gupta for the Appellant; Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh with Mr. Sushant Chavan i/by Ms. Mrunalini Deshmukh and Ms. Kavita Brid for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Family Court Appeal against an order of the Family Court in a matrimonial dispute.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought continuation of the interim arrangement that was in place during the pendency of the appeal.
Filing Reason
The appellant requested the court to continue the interim arrangement after the dismissal of the appeal.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court had passed an order which was challenged in the appeal; the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Issues
Whether the interim arrangement should be continued after dismissal of the appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
Counsel for the appellant requested continuation of the interim arrangement.
Counsel for the respondent opposed the request.
Ratio Decidendi
In the interest of justice, an interim arrangement that was in place during the pendency of an appeal may be continued for a limited period after dismissal to allow the parties to take further steps.
Judgment Excerpts
After the judgment was pronounced, Counsel for the Appellant requested us to continue the interim arrangement which was obtaining during the pendency of the Appeal.
In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to continue the interim arrangement for a period of four weeks from today.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Family Court Appeal No.88 of 2011 against an order of the Family Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on July 23, 2012. After dismissal, the appellant sought continuation of the interim arrangement.
