V.K. Tahilramani, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 26th February, 2013 passed by the Family Court. Mumbai below Exhibit-1 in Petition No. A 1717 of 2011. In the said petition, the appellant had prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. In the said petition an application was preferred by the respondent regarding maintainability of the petition. In the application it was prayed by the respondent that the Court be pleased to frame a preliminary issue of maintainability as to whether marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent. By an order dated 26th February, 2013 the Family Court answered the preliminary issue in the negative that is no marriage ever took place between the parties. It is this order which has been assailed before us.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Family Court on 26th February, 2013 should not have disposed of the application for framing preliminary issue because on 22nd February, 2013 application has been preferred by the appellant for adjournment on the ground that the petitioner seeks to file review petition before the Supreme Court.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be necessary to state few facts:

The facts as stated earlier are that the respondent moved the Family Court with the prayer for framing the preliminary issue as to whether any marriage has taken place between her and the petitioner on 17th August, 2009 as claimed by the appellant/petitioner. The Family Court rejected the said application. Hence, the said order came to be challenged before the High Court. This Court directed the Family Court to frame the preliminary issue. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court and dismissed the SLP by order dated 5.7.2012. Then the Family Court framed the preliminary issue which is as under.

"Does the petitioner prove that he was married to the respondent on 17th August, 2009 or on any other date?"

This preliminary issue was answered in the negative on 26th February, 2013 wherein it was held that no marriage took place between the parties on 17th August, 2009 or on any other date.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the said order was passed on 26th February, 2013 an application had been made by the appellant before the Family Court on 22nd February, 2013 seeking adjournment as the appellant wished to move review petition before the Supreme Court in respect of the order dated 5th July, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court upholding the order of the High Court. His grievance is that on 26th February, 2013 the Family Court without granting any adjournment disposed of the application relating to the preliminary issue. His further contention is that when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court no order could have been passed by the Family Court.

5. As far as above grievance is concerned, it is seen that SLP was dismissed on 5th July, 2012. The limitation for filing a review would be 30 days. The appellant moved an application before the Family Court on 22nd February, 2013 stating that he "wishes" to file a review petition before the Supreme Court. By that date no review petition had been filed before the Supreme Court. The limitation for filing the review petition had long expired. It is also seen that no review petition has been filed on the day when the order was passed by the Family Court. In this view of the matter, the Family Court is not expected to wait indefinitely till the review petition is moved by the appellant before the Supreme Court. As stated earlier, time for filing the review petition had long expired. It is observed that the appellant was only adopting delaying tactics. Thus, we find no merit in this contenti