← Library
Bombay High CourtCAN/50/2015disposed off

Mrs. Suman Vasant Dhotre v. Mrs. Sharmishtha Chetan Dhotre

2016-08-23Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Swapna S. Joshi,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Kanade3 pages

1/3 Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 50 OF 2015 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 366 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 196 OF 2014 Mrs. Suman Vasant Dhotre ...Applicant In the matter between Mrs. Sharmishtha Chetan Dhotre

...Petitioner

(Original Respondent) Vs.

Mr. Chetan Vasant Dhotre

...Respondent

And Mr. Vasant Amruit Dhotre

...Respondent/

Contemnor No.2 ****** Mr. Sachin H. Kankal, for the Applicant Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, for the Petitioner None for the Respondent ****** CORAM : V. M. KANADE & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ DATE : AUGUST 23, 2016

2/3 P.C. :

1.

This application is filed by the mother-in-law of the Petitionerwife- Original Respondent in the Family Court Appeal. By our order dated 4th September, 2015, we had appointed a Court Receiver in respect of the property owned by the husband though it stands in the name of father -in-law (Respondent No.2 in the contempt petition) of the Petitioner wife. The application has now been made by the mother-inlaw of the Petitioner-wife (Original Respondent in FCA), claiming that she is the owner of the property. She also claims that the said property was received by her as 'Stridhan'. It is, therefore, submitted that the order dated 4th September, 2015 may be vacated. 2.

It will not be possible to accept the plea of the Applicant raised for the first time, after the impugned order was passed on 4th September, 2015. This Court was constrained to pass the order dated 4th September, 2015 since Respondent No.1 -husband (Org. Appellant in FCA) is refusing to pay the maintenance to the Petitioner -wife (Org. Respondent in FCA). The Appellant -Husband is working in Canada and, as such, it is difficult to execute the order of maintenance, which is passed against him. It is obvious that the Appellant-Husband is playing hide-and-sick

3/3 in this Court and is refusing to comply with the directions given by this Court from time to time.

3.

Now a fresh application is filed on behalf of his mother and a new contention is raised that the property is received by her as 'Stridhan'. This please was never raised in this past. We are, therefore, not inclined to vacate the order passed by us on 4th September, 2015. Hence, the Civil Application is dismissed.

SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.

V.M. KANADE, J.

Vaishali Tikam