1  

NON REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL.447 OF 2009  

[Arising out of SLP{C] No. 4916 of 2007]      

Vishwas Narhari Sahastrabudhe                   … Appellant     VERSUS    Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe                            …Respondent      

O R D E R      1. Leave granted.  

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order  

dated 31st of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 15 of  

2006, by which the decree passed by the Family Court at  

Pune, granting divorce under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the  

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was affirmed but had  

remanded the matter back to the Family Court for proper  

determination of issues of permanent alimony and  

ownership of flat in Triveni Nagar.  Against the aforesaid  

order of remand, the husband/appellant had filed a

2  

Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was  

heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.   

It is to be noted that while issuing notice on this Special  

Leave Petition on 12th of March, 2007, this Court passed  

the following order :-  

“Delay condoned.  Issue notice.    Learned counsel for the petitioner states  that he does not challenge the finding on  divorce and monthly maintenance.”    

 3. The issues that were framed by the impugned Judgment  

of the High Court are as follows :-  

“(a)  Whether the original petitioner will in law  be entitled to seek declaration as prayed for from  Family Court under Family Court’s Act?  (b) If yes, whether in the facts and circumstances  of this case, the original petitioner should be given  such declaration of Family Court or any other  order as Family Court may deem fit?  (c) Whether Family Court can record any finding  about flat at Mhatre Bridge and Triveni Nagar in  the absence of Narhari alias Kishor, father of the  appellant?  (d) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case,  the original petitioner proves that flat at Mhatre  Bridge and Triveni Nagar were/are owned by the  appellant?  (e) What should be the amount of permanent  alimony in the facts and circumstances of this  case?”   

3  

4. Considering the issues framed by the High Court, we find  

that the question of jurisdiction of the Family Court has to be  

taken into consideration by it and that being the position, at this  

stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by  

the High Court.  However, we make it clear that the Family  

Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made  

by the High Court in the impugned Judgment while deciding  

the issues as directed by the High Court and the Family Court  

shall decide the same in accordance with law including the  

question whether Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which  

deals with disposal of property is applicable in the facts of this  

case or not.  

4A. However, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lacs), which  

has been directed to be paid by the High Court to the  

respondent, is stayed till the disposal of the Family Court  

proceeding after remand.  At the same time, we modify the  

order dated 10th of August, 2007 of this Court to the extent that  

instead of Rs. 2000/- as maintenance to each of the child of the  

parties, a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of maintenance to each  

child shall be paid by the husband to the respondent/wife

4  

regularly from 1st of February, 2009 onwards or till the Family  

Court decides the disputes after remand.    

5. The appeal is thus disposed of.  There will be no  

order as to costs.       

 ……………………………J.  [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]  

NEW DELHI:                               ……………………………J.   JANUARY 27, 2009                      [H. L. DATTU]