Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

1. On the earlier date, the parties were put to notice that this Appeal will be taken up for final disposal.

2. The Appellant wife has taken an exception to the order dated 8th November, 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mumbai by which a Petition being Petition No.A1464 of 2008 filed by her was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the said Code"). By the same order, the defence of the Appellant wife in a Petition being Petition No.D60 of 2009 filed by the Respondent husband was ordered to be struck out in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the said Code.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant wife has taken us through the averments made in the application at Exhibit 98 filed by the Respondent husband and the reply thereto. He has also invited our attention to the order dated 13th March, 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on application at Exhibit 98. He submitted that in terms of paragraph 8 of the said order, the learned Judge modified the earlier order regarding grant of access to the minor child. He pointed out that there is a specific observation that if the said access order is not complied with, the matter will be taken up for orders under Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the said Code. He also invited our attention to further order dated 27th August, 2012. He also pointed out that there is a dispute between the parties as regards what transpired on 8th September, 2012. He pointed out the order made by the learned Judge on 14th September, 2012. He pointed out that a video film was made by the Appellant to show what exactly transpired on 8th September, 2012. By order dated 14th September, 2012, the marriage counsellor was ordered to see the video film and submit a report. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the report dated 1st October, 2012 shows that the allegation regarding noncompliance with the order of the Family Court has not been substantiated. He urged that in the impugned order, there is no finding recorded regarding the deliberate or wilful disobedience on the part of the Appellant of the orders of the Family Court. The submission is that the learned Judge has committed an error by assigning wrong meaning to the finding of the Psychiatry Department of the Nair Hospital that the Appellant has shown "MMPI fake good protocol" symptoms. He relied upon an article on subject by L.A.R. Stein and John R. Graham as well as Carolyn L. Williams. He submitted that the facts of the case in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vimi Vinod Chopra Vs. Vinod Gulshan Chopra 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 525 were completely different. He urged that as there is no finding recorded of wilful disobedience by the wife of any particular order of the Family Court, the impugned drastic order of striking out the defence as well as dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant is illegal and harsh.

4. The Respondent husband appearing in person submitted that at no stage, the Respondent husband was given an opportunity to enjoy the company of his son whose present age is 11 1/2 years. He pointed out from the record of attendance maintained in the Children's Complex at Family Court, Mumbai that there is noncompliance of the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the order dated 13th March, 2012. He submitted that there are series of orders passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on application at Exhibit 98 and all the orders will have to be read together to find out whether there is a categorical finding recorded of wilful breach or wilful disobedience of the orders of the Family Court. He submitted that there are categorical findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court regarding deliberate noncompliance of the orders regarding access by the Appellant wife. He urged that the