JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This notice of motion has been taken out by the respondent-wife for a variation of the Order dated 15th January, 1991, made by Cazi, J., in Interim Petition No. 32, of 1990, allowing the petitioner-husband access to the minor child, Leena, in the manner as provided for in the said order. This litigation has a peculiar background, and, unless the factual matrix is reproduced, it would not be possible to appreciate the circumstances under which the motion has been taken out or the defences taken in objection to the prayers in the motion.

2. The respondent-wife filed M.J. Petition No. 622 of 1989 before the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, for obtaining divorce and for maintenance for herself and the minor child, Leena. Upon the Matrimonial Jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court being transferred to the Family Court, the said proceedings came to be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay. The respondent had taken out an interlocutory Application No. 378 of 1990 before the Family Court, seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court, vide its Order dated 11th September, 1990, directed the petitioner to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the respondent and at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the minor child, Leena, with effect from 21st July, 1990. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also directed to be paid as costs.

3. The petitioner-husband challenged the said order of the Family Court in writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 5159 of 1990, before this Court. Though, initially, an ad-interim order of stay of the order made by the Family Court was granted, the stay came to be vacated by an Order dated 30th January, 1991. At no stage, did the petitioner-husband indicate willingness on his part to abide by the orders for interim maintenance made by the competent Court, neither at the initial stage, nor after the stay was vacated by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

4. Not only did the petitioner-husband not pay the interim maintenance to the respondent and the minor child, but he moved another Interim Petition No. 3 of 1991 for an order of interim custody of the minor child. This Interim Petition No. 3 of 1991, came up for hearing before another learned Single Judge of this Court (Dhanuka, J), who, by his lengthy Order of 22nd March, 1991, placed on record the contumacious conduct of the petitioner-husband, and upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-wife that the petitioner ought not to be heard, unless he complied with the order of the Family Court dated 11th September, 1990. He also directed the petitioner-husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 54,000/- in Court on or before 1st April, 1991, and granted liberty to the respondent-wife to withdraw the said amount. The learned Judge directed:

"Till the said amount is deposited, this petition will not be heard, as it is in the interest of the minor child that the arrears of maintenance must first be cleared."

The learned Judge (Dhanuka, J.) also had occasion to notice the contentions raised by the respondent-husband in the writ petition filed by him and the order passed by Tipnis, J. While vacating the stay granted earlier, Dhanuka, J., directed that :

"If the petitioner is able to obtain stay of the order of the Family Court dated 11th September, 1990 from the writ Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction liberty to apply to this Court for modification of the order passed by me."

5. I am informed at the bar by Ms. Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-wife, and it is not disputed, that Writ Petition No. 5159 of 1990, filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the Family Court's order was ultimately dismissed by an Order dated 9th January, 1990, made by Agarwal, J. The respondent has not filed any proceedings to challenge the said order, which has become final.

6. As an offshoot of the facts noticed by Dhanuka, J., in his Order dated 23rd March, 1991, su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document