Allowed

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar v. Tatoba Ramesh Londhe

Bombay HC29 Nov 2023WP/7597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted permission to the petitioner/wife to file her written statement in a divorce petition pending before the Family Court at Sangli, allowing her a final opportunity to meet serious allegations despite prior delays and a 'no WS' order.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file written statement granted by December 8, 2023, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs; interim orders vacated.

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

15-ASWP-7597-2023.DOC

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2023.11.29 18:00:52 +0530

¶3

Shivgan

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7597 OF 2023

¶5

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. Through Smt. Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar …Petitioner Versus Tatoba Ramesh Londhe …Respondent

¶6

Mr Kuldeep U Nikam , for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 29th November 2023

¶8

PC:-

¶9

None appears for Respondent/Husband despite service. In the order dated 27^th June 2023, the Family Court at Sangli was requested to defer the hearing for the period of three weeks from the date of that order. The limited issue in the petition is the grant of permission to the Petitioner/Wife to file her written statement.

¶10

The Petitioner/Wife has challenged the order dated 14^th March 2023 passed below Exhibit 30 in Petition A No.158 of 2020.

¶11

The facts in brief are that Respondent/Husband filed a petition for divorce against the present Petitioner/Wife on the ground of cruelty on 10^th July 2018 before the Family Court at Sangli. The Petition was initially filed before the learned Civil Judge,

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

29th November 2023

¶14

15-ASWP-7597-2023.DOC

¶15

Senior Division, Sangli and thereafter the Petition was transferred to the Family Court at Sangli.

¶16

By order dated 13^th June, 2019, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli passed an order of ‘No WS’ against the Petitioner/Wife. The Petitioner/Wife preferred an application below Exhibit 10 seeking to set aside ‘No WS’ order passed against her. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Wife states that application made by her to set aside the ‘No WS’ was simply filed and no orders were passed on that application. Thereafter the Petition was transferred to the Family Court at Sangli. Once again, Petitioner/Wife made an application dated 5^th March 2022 seeking permission to file her written statement. The said application was rejected by the impugned order.

¶17

After passing the order of ‘No WS’, the trial has proceeded and evidence of the Respondent/Husband is completed. The Petitioner/Wife has not even cross-examined her husband. Furthermore, Respondent/Husband has also proceeded to file pursis closing his evidence in the matter. It is only thereafter that this Petition was filed and now the Petitioner/Wife seeks permission to file Written Statement by challenging the impugned order.

¶18

The Family Court has passed a reasoned order and has recorded its observations that the Petitioner/Wife has attempted to delay the proceedings. Be that as it may, there are serious allegations made by the Respondent/Husband against the Petitioner/Wife. I am of the view that the Petitioner/Wife may be given one final

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

29th November 2023

¶21

15-ASWP-7597-2023.DOC

¶22

opportunity to meet his allegations by filing her Written Statement. However, record has put to the effect that she has failed to even cross-examine Respondent/Husband and 'No WS' order has no bearing on her right to cross-examine the witness. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/Wife that in view of the impugned order, Petitioner/Wife was not permitted to crossexamine the witnesses. No such order appears on the record of the matter. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Wife is at liberty to make an application for cross-examining the witnesses of the Respondent/Husband, if any, have been examined. In these circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶23

a) The Petitioner/Wife shall file her Written Statement on or before 8th December 2023 subject to paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent/Husband. If the Written Statement is not filed within stipulated time, Family Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial in the matter and dispose of the matter finally.

¶24

b) All interim orders are vacated.

¶25

c) The Petitioner/Wife is at liberty to make an application for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the Respondent/Husband.

¶26

d) In view of above directions, Petition is disposed of.

¶27

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

¶28

Page 3 of 4 29th November 2023

¶29

15-ASWP-7597-2023.DOC

¶30

Page 4 of 4 29th November 2023

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar v. Tatoba Ramesh Londhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar v. Tatoba Ramesh Londhe

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

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

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

Paranjali Siddharth Chitnis Vs Siddharth Dilip Chitnis

Shri Amar Dattatray Adusle Vs Sou. Rashmi Amar Adsule

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar Vs Tatoba Ramesh Londhe

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde Vs Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre