Disposed

Sulochanabai Prakash Karnavat v. Banubai Abdeali Bohari and Others

Bombay HC2 Feb 2017WP/3223/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order in a civil suit regarding the petitioner's marital status. The Court clarified that the impugned order did not contain a categorical finding that the petitioner was not the legal wife of the deceased, noting the underlying suit had settled, and disposed of the writ with liberty to prove status in future remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to prosecute remedies to prove her status as legally wedded wife; impugned order clarified to contain no categorical finding against her status.

Sulochanabai Prakash Karnavat Vs Banubai Abdeali… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp322314.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2014

¶5

Sulochanabai w/o Prakash Karnavat, age: 66 years, Occ: Household, at present R/o Beauticians Town, 226, Golani Market, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 Banubai Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Household, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶9

02 Kausarali Abdeali Bohari,

¶10

age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶11

01 Banubai Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Household, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶12

02 Kausarali Abdeali Bohari,

¶13

age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶14

03 Johar Abdeali Bohari,

¶15

age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶16

04 Abbas Abdeali Bohari,

¶17

age: major, Occ: Business,

¶18

{2}

¶19

wp322314.odt

¶20

R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶21

05 Juzar Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶22

02 Aziz Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

¶23

07 Prakash Babulal Karnavat, (Dead), through legal heir: 7(a) Darshan Prakash Karnavat, age: major, Occ: service, R/o Dhule, District Dhule.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

Mr.V.T.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner Respondent No.1 is reported to be dead.

¶26

Mr.A.S.Yenegure, advocate holding for Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 6.

¶27

Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.S.V.Nyayadhish, advocate for Respondent No.7(a).

¶28

CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J. DATE : 02^nd February, 2017

¶29

PER COURT:

¶30

01 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 6 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a). Respondent No.1 is reported to be dead.

¶31

wp322314.odt

¶32

02 It has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a) that the original plaintiffs i.e. Respondents No.2 to 6 and original defendant i.e. Respondent No.7(a) have settled their dispute by arriving at a compromise and now that the original plaintiffs are no longer willing to prosecute the suit having received possession of tenanted premises by them.

¶33

03 It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.7(a) that because of the finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash Karnavat, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, not only in the suit, but also in other matters.

¶34

04 On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no finding categorically recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash. Then, there is also subsequent development, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a).

¶35

05 In view of the subsequent development in this matter, I do not find that anything has survived in this petition and same deserves to be disposed of accordingly subject to the clarification that the impugned order dated 24.02.2014, passed by the learned trial Court below Exhibit-87 in R.C.S. No.255/2006, does not record any categorical finding that the petitioner was not legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash Karnavat and consequently it is further made clear that there shall have liberty to the petitioner to prosecute remedies available in law and in case she does so, she

¶36

{4}

¶37

wp322314.odt

¶38

would be entitled to prove her status as legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash Karnavat, without being influenced by the order impugned in this petition. It is made clear that all the contentions of rival parties are kept open.

¶39

06 Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand

disposed of.

S.B.SHUKRE

JUDGE

adb/wp322314

Sulochanabai Prakash Karnavat v. Banubai Abdeali Bohari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochanabai Prakash Karnavat v. Banubai Abdeali Bohari and Others

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

Suryakant Pandharinath Tawale Vs Vijaykumar Pandharinath Tawale and Others

Sheikh Ruknoddin Sheikh Husnoddin and Others Vs Umravbi Yusufka Died through Lrs Abbaskhan Died Lrs Sultanabano Habibbeg and Others

Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Shinde Vs Rambhau Govind Shinde and Anothers

Shivajirao Babasaheb Patil Vs Deodatt Shirish Shripad Naik and Another

The Executive Engineer Construction MSEB Aurangabad Vs Syed Masiin Syed Hasham Died Lrs Syed Aslam Syed Masoom and Others

Ganesh Ramesh Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others