Quashed

Reena Maharana v. Kartik Chandra Maharana S/O. Late Harekrushna Maharana

Bombay HC4 Oct 2021WP/2111/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed the Family Court order rejecting an application for disclosure of assets. The impugned order recorded an erroneous finding that parties were absent despite counsel being present for the applicant. The order was restored to the Family Court file.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13/11/2019 rejected as Exhibit-24 was quashed, set aside, and restored to the Family Court file.

Reena Maharana Vs Kartik Chandra Maharana S/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP-2111-2020.doc

¶2

BDP-SPS-TAC

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signed byBHARATDASHARATHPANDIT Date: 2021.10.0512:44:32 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2111 OF 2020

¶7

Reena Maharana….Petitioner
V/s
Kartik Chandra Maharana…..Respondent

¶8

Mr. S.J. Mishra a/w Pushpa Tiwari i/b SRS Legal for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejashree Joshi i/b Mr. Jitendra H. Oak for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE: OCTOBER 04, 2021

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1]Exhibit-24, an application moved by the Petitioner for directing
Respondent-husband to disclose details of movable and immovable assets,
came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 13/11/2019. As such, this
Petition.

¶13

2]After having heard respective Counsels for sometime, it is noticed
that Family Court has recorded that parties are absent, whereas Counsel for
opponent was present. Roznama speaks of presence of Counsel for the
Petitioner, whereas Petitioner in person was absent and the Respondent so
also Counsel for Respondent were absent. It appears that while passing
the order impugned, Court below has recorded finding of fact by recording
absence of parties though Counsel for the Petitioner was very much present.

¶14

1/2

¶15

WP-2111-2020.doc

¶16

3] As such, it was expected of the Family Court to deal with the prayer made in the application on merit after hearing parties, may be if required, through their respective Counsel.

¶17

4] In that view of the matter, order impugned passed below Exhibit-24 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application – Exhibit-24 stood restored to the file of the Family Court.

¶18

5] Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to file affidavit in support of Application – Exhibit-24 within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent-husband shall be at liberty to respondent to the same within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶19

6] It is expected of the Family Court to decide the said Application - Exhibit -24 after following the aforesaid calendar expeditiously.

¶20

7] Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶22

2/2

Reena Maharana v. Kartik Chandra Maharana S/O. Late Harekrushna Maharana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Maharana v. Kartik Chandra Maharana S/O. Late Harekrushna Maharana

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

Moin @ Moinuddin Shaifq Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Touseaf Yakub Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Supriya Hruday Sakpal @ Supriya Rahul Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Malappa Machke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant @ Bhau Mukund Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath @ Nitin Lakshman Bombedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra