JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---This petition is not on board for final hearing. However, with the consent of the parties it is taken up for final hearing. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner Piyusha has filed a petition before the Family Court for maintenance and permanent injunction against the respondent Rajesh. It appears that in that petition, the respondent Rajesh did not file his written statement. However, ultimately, he filed the written statement, which was taken on record. Against that order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2169 of 1996 which was decided by this Court by order dated 11th April, 1996. Though this Court rejected that petition, this Court directed that the respondent shall pay as costs to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as a condition precedent for accepting his written statement. However, this Court did not prescribe any time limit for payment of the amount of the costs. 3. It appears that on 16-8-1996 the Court framed issues in the petition. While framing issues, the Court took into consideration the written statement filed by the respondent though by that date the amount of costs directed to be paid by this Court by its order dated 11-4-1996 was not paid. Ultimately, the amount of costs of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in the Family Court on 24-9-1996. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this petition challenging framing of issues dated 16-8-1996 which takes into consideration the written statement filed by the respondent. The petitioner, who appears in person, also makes a grievance about issue No. 6 framed by the trial Court, which according to her is a totally irrelevant issue. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent also. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, though it is true that according to order of this Court dated 11th April, 1996 payment of costs was a condition precedent, the Written Statement of the respondent could not have been considered by the Trial Court while framing issues on 16-8-1996, as by that date the amount of costs was not paid. In the submission of the learned Counsel as subsequently on 24-9-1996 the amount of costs has been deposited and the order of this Court has been substantially complied with, there is no need of interference at the hands of this Court with the framing of issues by the trial Court. The learned Counsel also does not insist on issue No. 6 being retained. He submits that he has already raised that issue in the Divorce petition, which was filed against the petitioner. 5. Now, if in the light of these rival submissions, the record of the case is perused, it becomes clear that technically speaking the framing of issue by the trial Court on 16-8-1996 taking into consideration the written statement filed by the respondent without the respondent paying the amount of costs is irregular. However, considering that it is a Question of the respondent's right to defend the proceedings and as the amount of costs has been deposited on 24-9-1996. In my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to ignore the written statement filed by the respondent . Similarly, Issue No. 6 appears to be not exactly relevant for deciding the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore that is also required to be deleted. It is to be seen here that as observed above, it was the duty of the respondent to pay the amount of costs immediately after the order was passed on 11-4-1996. However, he did not pay the amount of costs. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to pay costs of this petition. In my opinion, following order would meet ends of justice. ORDER (1) The order of the trial Court dated 16-8-1996 is maintained, except that the trial Court is directed to delete issue No. 6 (ii) The trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of M.J. Petition No. C-16/ 92 as expeditiously as possible, in any case by 31-12-1999. Parties have undertaken before me to co-operate with the Family Court. (iii) The Respondent would be at liberty to make an application to the Family Court for trial of the Divorce Petition along with M.J. Petition No. C-16/92 which application may be decided by the Family Court in accordance with law. (iv) The costs of this petition are quantified at Rs. 5.000/-. (iii) The Respondent would be at liberty to make an application to the Family Court for trial of the Divorce Petition along with M.J. Petition No. C-16/92 which application may be decided by the Family Court in accordance with law. (iv) The costs of this petition are quantified at Rs. 5.000/-. The amount of costs be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within a period of two weeks from today. The Family Court shall permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount of costs so deposited by the respondent as also the amount of costs already deposited by the respondent on 24-9-96 in case not already withdrawn. (v) In view of the fact that the main writ petition is being disposed of by this order, any observations that might have been made in the interim and interlocutory orders passed from time to time in this petition, are expunged. (vi) Family Court and parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court. Order accordingly.