Dismissed

Kenneth Albert Lobo v. Maneesha Lobo

Bombay HC29 Oct 2021MCA/88/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that family DV proceedings pending incomplete cross-examination should not be transferred immediately. Ordered completion of evidence within one month and all related proceedings within six months to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

Evidence to be completed within one month; all related proceedings to conclude within six months.

Kenneth Albert Lobo Vs Maneesha Lobo — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/2 5 MCA-88-21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2021

¶4

Kenneth Albert Lobo .. Applicant Versus Mrs.Maneesha Lobo .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Hitesh P. Vyas for the Applicant. Mr.Prathamesh Bhangude for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 29^th OCTOBER, 2021

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Husband, who seeks transfer of the application fled by the Respondent/Wife under the domestic violence proceedings from the 2-II Joint JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune to the Family Curt at Pune. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in case of Sandip Mrinmoy Chakraboarty Vs. Reshita Sandip 1 Chakrabarty . In the said case, no doubt the proceedings have been transferred to the Family Court, considering the legal aspect that the Family Court is competent to deal with the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and in the better interest of the parties, clubbing of the proceedings was ordered to avoid multiplicity and delay in proceedings.

¶9

1 2018(6)Mh.L.J. (Cri) 499

¶10

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶11

2/2 5 MCA-88-21.doc

¶12

In the present case, it is informed by the learned counsel for the Respondent that in the DV proceedings, the mother of the applicant was cross-examined and her cross-examination is partially complete and the notes of evidence, which are placed on record, refect that she was cross-examined on 05/10/2018, 15/11/2018 and 18/01/2019. It necessarily conveys that the she is in the dock and, is under crossexamination. It is a different aspect that parties somehow got adjourned the proceedings on one count or the other and subsequently, on account of the pandemic, it could not be completed. In such circumstances, when the evidence is partly recorded by one party, I am not inclined to transfer the proceedings at this stage. However, it is made clear that the matter shall not be further prolonged. The witness has stepped into the witness-box in the year 2018 and has been partly cross-examined. In these circumstances, it is directed that the evidence shall be completed within a period of one month from today. Since the Cri.Misc. Application No.818 is fled in the year 201,, the learned Magistrate shall make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months. Further, the Marriage Petition A/1/2018, which is also at the stage of cross-examination, shall also be concluded with the co-operation of the parties within a period of six months from today.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶14

M.M.Salgaonkar

Kenneth Albert Lobo v. Maneesha Lobo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kenneth Albert Lobo v. Maneesha Lobo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Amit Anand Shetty and Ors. Vs Mrs. Nivedita Amit Shetty

Surendra Rikhabdas Sancheti HUF through S.R. Sancheti Vs Madan Annaso Mirjkar and Ors.

Srikala Ramchandra Pillai Vs Madhavitai Arun Rane and Ors.

Mrs. Gayatri Rahul Pawar Vs Mr. Rahul Prakash Pawar

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Jijabai Bhiva Yele and Ors.

Punjab National Bank Vs the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council