MAHAMADALI A. VAHAB SHAIKH v. MARIUAM MAHAMADALI SHAIKH
IA/1727/2023 · 2026-08-17
body2023
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 2879 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 2879 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
6.IA.1727.2023.odt IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1727 OF 2023 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 31970 OF 2022 Mahamadali A. Vahab Shaikh ...Applicant Versus Mariuam Mahamadali Shaikh ...Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 31972 OF 2022 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 31970 OF 2022 *** Mr. Balaji P. Shinde i/b Ms. Kavita P. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Seema Dighe (Through V.C.) i/b Adv. Sarda, Advocate for the Respondent. ***
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 17 AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :
1. On 11 August 2026, the following order was passed in the present proceeding :
“1. Mr. Balaji Shinde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that after filing of this Family Court Appeal, his client is not in touch with him. Therefore, he does not have any instructions in the present Family Court Appeal. He submits that there is a delay in filing this appeal hence, an application for condonation of Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-KOL:7655-DB
6.IA.1727.2023.odt delay has been filed.
2. Ms. Seema Dighe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – wife submits that there are two sons born out of the wedlock of the applicant with the respondent and both the sons are in her custody. There was an
order of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month and as of today, there are arrears of Rs. 5,00,000/-
3. Stand over to 17 August 2026 matter to come up under the caption for “Dismissal”.”
2. Mr. Balaji Shinde, learned counsel, submits that the Advocate-on-Record has already communicated to the Applicant that the Advocate-on-Record is seeking discharge from the present proceeding.
3. None appears for the Applicant when the matter is called out. Neither is the Applicant present in person. It appears that the Applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter any further.
4. The Family Court Appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution.
5. In sequel, all interim applications stand disposed of.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) Shrikant Malani