Partly allowed

Shrikant Buchade v. Urmila Buchade

Bombay HC4 Nov 2023WP/5292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed the order rejecting an application to examine a witness from Kamat hospital and set aside the review order, permitting the petitioner to examine said witness to ensure a fair trial in a Hindu Marriage Act proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 3rd August 2022 and Review Application Rejection of 2nd January 2023 set aside to the extent of allowing examination of witness from Kamat Hospital.

Shrikant Buchade Vs Urmila Buchade — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/4 9-aswp-5292-2023-.doc

¶2

Shrikant Buchade v. Urmila Buchade

¶3

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2023.11.07 18:36:40 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5292 OF 2023

¶6

Shrikant Buchade ,

¶7

Age:36 years, Occ.:Advocate, Residing at C/o. Natha Prabhu Buchade, At Post, Marunji, Tal.:Mulshi, District-Pune, 411 057. …Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Urmila Buchade , Age:34 years, Occ.:Household, Residing at C/o. Chandrakant Kesu Kalate, Residing at Wakad Road, in front of Ramagroup, Shree Datta Colony, Hinjawadi Infotech Park, Wakad, Tal.:Mulshi, District-Pune, 411 057. …Respondent

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Diwan for Petitioner. Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED : 4^th November 2023

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The Petitioner has assailed the order dated 3rd August 2022

¶14

passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune passed below Exhibits 160 and 163.

¶15

The Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 2nd January 2023 Shivgan

¶16

2/4 9-aswp-5292-2023-.doc

¶17

passed by the same Court below Exhibit 170 whereby his application for review of the common order dated 3rd August 2022 was rejected.

¶18

A petition under Section 12 r/w Section 5 and Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the Petitioner is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune. There are allegations in the petition that the Respondent/Wife suffers from some mental disorder and was taking some medications and that the Petitioner/Husband was of the opinion that they should abstain from conceiving a child without knowing the effect of medications on such child, amongst other allegations.

¶19

Mr. Sarthak Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the issues have been framed by the Civil Court and the trial has commenced. He made two applications before the Civil Court seeking to examine a witness of the Niramay Hospital relating to hospitalisation of the mother of the Respondent. This application is below Exhibit 160. Another application below Exhibit 163 was made seeking issuance of witness summons to an official of Kamat hospital, Chinchwad, Pune and direct him to bring documents mentioned in a list produced by the Petitioner for examination. By the common order dated 3rd August 2022 impugned herein both the applications were rejected on the ground that there were neither any averment nor pleading regarding the treatment of the Respondent in

¶20

Kamat hospital and also pertaining to her mother’s treatment in Shivgan

¶21

3/4 9-aswp-5292-2023-.doc

¶22

Niramay hospital. The Petitioner has thus, sought a review of the order, however, the Review Application was also rejected on 2nd January 2023. These orders of 3rd August 2022 and 2nd January 2023, are assailed before this Court by way of present Petition.

¶23

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents with their assistance.

¶24

Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that there was no pleading in the entire Marriage Petition before the Civil Court regarding the illness of the Respondent’s mother and the facts relating to the Petitioner’s attempts to convince the Respondent to wait to conceive a child on account of medications that she was taking for some mental disorder. Mr. Diwan, on the other hand, is unable to show any averment regarding the illness of the Respondent’s mother in the Petition. He, however, maintains that the Petitioner only learnt of this fact after filing of the present Petition.

¶25

Paragraph (z) on Page 30 of the Marriage Petition contains some pleadings regarding the medications taken by the Respondent and Petitioner’s attempts to convince her and her parents to abstain from conceiving a child during her medications as he did not know the effect of these medicines on the feotus. However, the Petition is completely silent in respect of allegations regarding the mother’s illness. In view of the fact that there are some pleadings regarding

¶26

Shivgan

¶27

4/4 9-aswp-5292-2023-.doc

¶28

the Respondent’s medications and the pregnancy, etc., I am of the view that the Petitioner can be allowed to examine a witness from Kamat hospital with the related documents in that regard, to ensure a fair trial. However, there is no justification to summon the witness from Niramay hospital relating Respondent’s mother illness to be examined de-hors any pleading in the Marriage Petition.

¶29

Thus, the order dated 3rd August 2022 to the extent of disallowing application below Exhibit 160 is upheld while the said order disallowing application below Exhibit 163 is quashed and set aside. Similarly the order dated 2nd January 2023 to the limited extent as above is set aside. The Petitioner is thus, permitted to examine the witness of Kamat Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune.

¶30

Accordingly, the Petition is disposed in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶31

Shivgan

Shrikant Buchade v. Urmila Buchade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Buchade v. Urmila Buchade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Ram Agarwal Vs Dattajirao Yashwant Desai

Vishwa Developers Thr. Proprietor Mr. Jayant Mulay Vs Mrs. Rio Sharma

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Transocean Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Skipper Limited vs Zeeco India Private Limited

Shakil Ayub Dakhawe and Ors. Vs Najib Amir Saheb Fakih and Ors.

Wadhwa Residency Private Limited MUMBAI-400051 Vs Bhavik Chandrakant Shah and Anr.