PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) Applicant has moved this miscellaneous application seeking extension of time to stay abroad as granted by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2016. It is contended that counsel for the applicant has been abiding to the terms and conditions imposed by Court and has been appearing before the Trial Court.
(2.) It is contended that the appointment of the present applicant has been extended till 12.02.2019 and since his original documents are with Maasai Mara University, Kenya. He be permitted to stay abroad till 12.02.2019. Counsel undertakes that the petitioner would continue to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.
(3.) Counsel appearing for the complainant who has received a copy has opposed the prayer, his contention is that initially when the petitioner applied for permission he specifically mentioned in the application that he will not seek further time and since now the time has expired so there is no reason for extending the time. It is contended that the petitioner is now leaving the country on 12.03.2017, whereas the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is scheduled for 15.03.2017. It is contended that the urgency as stated in the main application is not subsisting.;