Disposed

Rutuja @ Mitrali Mahesh Desai v. Mahesh Madhukarrao Desai

Bombay HC8 Jan 2013WP/98/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court extended the time for the petitioner to deposit court costs and granted her additional opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, despite the respondent's objection. Transfer of proceedings was dismissed as the main matter was reserved for judgment.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to deposit court costs until 29/01/2013; permission granted to petitioner to cross-examine respondent.

Rutuja @ Mitrali Mahesh Desai Vs Mahesh Madhukarrao… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 98.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2013

¶5

Sow. Rutuja @ Mitrali W/o Mahesh Desai V/s Mahesh Madhukarrao Desai

¶6

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 08/01/2013.

¶7

Mr. Bhushan.B.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶10

Vide the present Writ Petition, dual prayers are made - (i) to extend the time to deposit the cost as per the order below Exh. 38 and (ii) to transfer the proceedings from the Family Court, Aurangabad to the Family Court at Mumbai.

¶11

The parties have extensively argued the matter in respect of transfer of the matter.

¶12

The request of the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings

¶13

2 W.P. 98.2013

¶14

can not be considered as it is stated that now the matter is reserved for Judgment.

¶15

With regard to the other prayer about opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the present respondent and for extension of time to deposit the cost can be considered though Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the said request and contended that due to the conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to cross examine the respondent. Still taking into account the relations between the parties, so also the nature of the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner.

¶16

6. In the result, I pass the following order :

¶17

The time granted to deposit the cost of ` 500/- [ Rupees Five Hundred only ] as directed by the Court vide order dated 07/11/2012 below Exh. 38 is extended up to 29/01/2013. The date i.e. 29/01/2013 is convenient to both the parties.

¶18

The petitioner shall deposit the cost of ` 500/- [ Rupees Five Hundred only ] as directed by the Court vide order dated 07/11/2012 below Exh. 38 on or before 29/01/2013.

¶19

On deposit of said cost, the petitioner is permitted to cross examine the respondent on the said date. The respondent thereafter is entitled to lead further evidence,so also the petitioner.

¶20

The Family Court, Aurangabad shall dispose of the

¶21

3 W.P. 98.2013

¶22

proceedings as early as possible and preferably within the period of six (6) months from today. The parties shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

¶23

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Taking into account the relations between the parties, no order as to costs in respect of the present Writ Petition.

¶24

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶25

KNP/W.P. 98.2013

Rutuja @ Mitrali Mahesh Desai v. Mahesh Madhukarrao Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rutuja @ Mitrali Mahesh Desai v. Mahesh Madhukarrao Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangalbai Bhujang Chavan and Anr. Vs Balaji Hariba Kasture and Ors.

Santosh Jaiwant Meher(Mali) and Ors. Vs Bhimrao Laxman Meher(Mali) and Ors.

Bhagchand Chovithram Chugani Vs Shrinath Urban Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Dr. Parveen Nurrodin Siddhiqui Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammad Shaik Ismiel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vinod Rajaram Zope. Vs Dhanraj Pandurang Mahajan (L.Rs.)Yuraj and Others.