JUDGMENT :

Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2. The question involved in the present case is about the interpretation of the order dated 25th September 2017 passed by this Court. The said order reads as follows:

"4. After an open discussion in the Court, the following solution is found to be appropriate and accordingly the order is passed as under:

(i) The applicant/lady shall shift on or before 29.9.2017 from the residence of respondent No. 1/father-in-law at Santacruz to the tenanted premises and will continue to stay in the tenanted premises till 31.12.2017.

(ii) Respondent No. 2 shall deposit every month Rs. 22,000 i.e. the lease rent of the tenanted premises in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, without prejudice, on the first date of each month till further orders by the Trial Court or Family Court.

(iii) The applicant/lady may search for another suitable accommodation and the Trial Court to allow her to withdraw Rs. 22,000 in the first week of every month."

3. Respondent No. 2 who was directed to deposit every month Rs. 22,000 as the lease rent of the tenanted premises in the City Civil Court, Mumbai is the husband of the present Petitioner. As per the above said order, the amount was to be deposited each month till further orders were passed by the Trial Court or by the Family Court. Admittedly, there was no litigation pending proceeding before the Family Court. The proceedings were pending only before the Trial Court viz. the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Those proceedings were under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. Now it is pointed out that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court has passed the interim order below Exhibit-2 in the said case directing the Respondent No. 1 therein i.e. the husband of the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 20,000 per month as interim monetary relief for food and other expenses to the Applicant-Petitioner from the date of the application till disposal of the main application.

5. The submission of learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2-husband is that this amount of Rs. 20,000 per month covers even the expenses of the lease rent and therefore, there is no question of any breach of the order dated 25th September, 2017 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing the Respondent-husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as interim relief for food and other expenses is stayed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in the Revision, subject to condition of the Respondent No. 1-husband depositing in the Court the amount of Rs. 10,000 per month and Respondent No. 1 is accordingly depositing the said amount. According to the submission of learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, the order passed by this Court on 25th September, 2017 thus merges in the order passed by the Trial Court directing the Respondent-husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month. Hence, Respondent No. 1 is now no more liable to deposit the amount of Rs. 22,000 towards lease rent of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court was to be in force only till the further orders to be passed by the Trial Court. Now as the further orders are passed by the Trial Court, liability of the Respondent No. 2 - husband to pay the amount of Rs. 22,000 per month towards the lease rent, no more survives and hence, there is no question of any contempt being committed by him.

6. Perusal of the further order passed by the Trial Court on 6.11.2017 goes to show that in discussion in para No. 5, the Trial Court has observed as follows:

"The Applicant sought to restrain the Respondents from dealing with by any mode of transfer or by creating third party right in respect of matrimonial house, from dispossessing/evicting her from matrimonial house and to direct Respondent No. 1 to hand over one set of keys of outer door of the house and to stop harassment to her and allow to stay peacefully i