Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Siddharth Ramdas Mohite, filed a Civil Application in the Bombay High Court seeking stay of an order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Family Court No.6, Mumbai, directing him to pay Rs.4000 per month to his wife, Lata Siddharth Mohite, as maintenance. The matter was pending since 2015 on ad-interim relief. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel submitted that she had tried to contact her client but was unable to do so. Considering the applicant's non-cooperation and the prolonged pendency, the court vacated the ad-interim relief granted on 30.09.2015, permitted the respondent wife to execute the maintenance order according to law, and granted liberty to the applicant to file an additional affidavit for ad-interim relief if he approaches his counsel. The court set the matter for further hearing after 8 weeks.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Ad-interim Relief - Vacation of Stay - Applicant husband sought stay of maintenance order but failed to cooperate with his counsel - Court vacated ad-interim stay granted earlier and permitted wife to execute the maintenance order - Held that non-cooperation of applicant justifies vacation of interim relief (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad-interim stay granted on 30.09.2015 should continue when the applicant (husband) is not cooperating with his counsel.
Final Decision
Ad-interim relief granted on 30.09.2015 stands vacated; respondent is permitted to execute the order according to law; liberty granted to applicant to file additional affidavit for ad-interim relief if he approaches counsel; matter adjourned by 8 weeks.
Law Points
- Maintenance
- Ad-interim relief
- Vacation of stay
- Execution of order
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 69
Civil Application No.167/2015 in Family Court Appeal No.92/2015
K.K. Tated, B.P. Colabawalla
Mrs. Manisha Prajapati i/b. S.V. Sadavarte for the Applicant, Ms. Maya P. Mujumdar for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil application for stay of maintenance order in family court appeal
Remedy Sought
Stay of operation and implementation of Family Court order dated 17.12.2014 directing payment of Rs.4000 per month maintenance
Filing Reason
Applicant husband sought stay of maintenance order
Previous Decisions
Family Court No.6, Mumbai passed order dated 17.12.2014 in Petition No.C38/11 directing applicant to pay Rs.4000 per month maintenance; ad-interim relief granted by High Court on 30.09.2015
Issues
Whether ad-interim stay should continue when applicant is not cooperating with counsel
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant's counsel submitted she tried to contact client but to no avail
Ratio Decidendi
Non-cooperation of the applicant with his counsel and prolonged pendency of the matter justifies vacation of ad-interim relief and allowing execution of the maintenance order.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering these facts and as the matter is pending since 2015 on adinterim relief, following order is passed: a. Adinterim relief granted by this court on 30.09.2015 stands vacated. b. The Respondent is permitted to execute the order according to law.
Procedural History
Family Court No.6, Mumbai passed maintenance order on 17.12.2014 in Petition No.C38/11. Applicant filed Family Court Appeal No.92/2015 and Civil Application No.167/2015 for stay. High Court granted ad-interim relief on 30.09.2015. On 22.06.2018, after hearing, court vacated ad-interim relief and permitted execution.
