Mr. Uday Padmakar Sirsat v. Mrs. Rupali Uday Sirsat @ Miss. Rupali Jayprakash Targe

Bombay HC12 Feb 2020WP/1460/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging the Family Court's order dismissing the petitioner's affidavit for absence, this Court set aside the impugned order on consent of both parties, subject to deposit of costs and future appearance for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside subject to deposit of Rs. 20,000/- costs to respondent within two weeks and petitioner appearing for cross-examination on next date.

Mr. Uday Padmakar Sirsat Vs Mrs. Rupali Uday Sirsat @… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

 917-wp-1460-20

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1460 OF 2020

¶5

Uday Padmakar Sirsat..Petitioner
 Vs.
Rupali Uday Sirsat @
Rupali Jayprakash Targe..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Talekar a/w. Sabah Khan i/b. Aditya Salve, Advocate for
Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Gauri Joglekar i/b. Gauri Govande, Advocate for Respondent

¶8

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2020

¶9

P.C.

¶10

.The challenge in this petition is to the order discarding the
affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioner (who is respondent in
Petition No.A/2223/2012 before the Family Court at Mumbai) on
the ground that the petitioner had failed to remain present for being
cross examined, on behalf of the respondent herein.

¶11

2.During the course of arguments, at bar, it transpired that this
is the third time that such an order is passed against the petitioner.
On one of the previous occasions, the order was recalled subject to
petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/-. Although the petitioner paid
the cost, again failed to remain present for being subjected to cross
examination. According to the petitioner, this was on account of the
fact that he was in custody in a criminal case and he was therefore
prevented from remaining present before the Family Court.

¶12

Mamta Kale

¶13

 917-wp-1460-20

¶14

2/3

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that
the petitioner would positively remain present for cross examination
before the Family Court and shall co-operate for the time bound
disposal of the matter as the petition for dissolution of marriage
filed by the wife is of the year 2012. It may be mentioned that there
is also a petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2016, for
restitution of the conjugal rights, which has been clubbed with the
petition filed by the respondent/ wife.

¶16

3.Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent, on
instructions, states that subject to the petitioner paying substantial
costs and agreeing for a time bound disposal of the petition before
the Family Court, this Court may allow the petitioner to be cross
examined by the respondent.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in such circumstances, this Court may not record detailed reasons.

¶18

5. In the result, the petition is disposed of by consent of parties, in the following terms.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1)The impugned orders are hereby set aside
subject to the petitioner depositing costs of
Rs.20,000/- before the Family Court, payable to the
respondent, within two weeks from today.

¶21

2)Deposit of the costs is a condition precedent for
setting aside of the order.

¶22

3)The petitioner shall remain present before the
Family Court positively on the next date, as may be

¶23

Mamta Kale

¶24

 3/3 917-wp-1460-20

¶25

fixed by the Family Court for being cross examined on
behalf of the respondent herein.

¶26

4)Both the petitions pending before the Family
Court at Bandra, Mumbai are hereby expedited.
5)The Family Court shall decide the petitions as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of six months from the receipt hereof.

¶27

6)Parties to co-operate for the time bound disposal
of the petition.

¶28

C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶29

Mamta Kale

Mr. Uday Padmakar Sirsat v. Mrs. Rupali Uday Sirsat @ Miss. Rupali Jayprakash Targe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Uday Padmakar Sirsat v. Mrs. Rupali Uday Sirsat @ Miss. Rupali Jayprakash Targe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandita Samir Bharadwaj Vs Samir Vidyasagar Bharadwaj

Sindhu Education Society Thru President Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Office of the Administrator , Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Mahesh Parsram Tolani Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Kolhapur Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryaditt, Kolhapur through Officer R.B. Patil Vs District Cooperative Election Officer Also Deputy Divisional Registrar Co. Soc. Dairy Pune and Ors.

Kolhapur Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryaditt, Kolhapur through Officer R.B. Patil Vs District Cooperative Election Officer Also Deputy Divisional Registrar Co. Soc. Dairy Pune and Ors.

Kolhapur Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryaditt, Kolhapur through Officer R.B. Patil Vs District Cooperative Election Officer Also Deputy Divisional Registrar Co. Soc. Dairy Pune and Ors.