← Library
Bombay High CourtFCA/51/2014dismissedrule discharged

Rajesh Ramcharan Kodape v. Smt. Shalini Rajesh Kodape And Anor.

2015-06-12Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice C.V. Bhadang1 pages

1 fca51.14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.51 OF 2014 [Rajesh Ramcharan Kodape .vs. Smt. Shalini Rajesh Kodape and one] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 12, 2015.

By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 2.6.2006 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondents towards maintenance.

None appears for the appellant.

It appears that this court had not stayed the judgment of the Family court during the pendency of the first appeal, with the result that the appellant must be paying the maintenance to the respondents. Since the amount payable by the appellant to the respondents towards maintenance is not much, it is most likely that the appellant is not desirous of prosecuting the appeal.

Hence, the family court appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande