Disposed

Mahendra Arvind Ganjewar v. Shraddha Mahendra Ganjewar

Bombay HC16 Feb 2024WP/1286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought setting aside of an evidence close order in a restitution of conjugal rights suit so he could lead further evidence, including CCTV and audio recordings. The High Court quashed the trial court's rejection, granted a last opportunity to lead evidence subject to Rs.5,000 costs payable to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.01.2023 quashed; last opportunity granted to lead further evidence, subject to Rs.5,000 cost to respondent-wife.

Mahendra Arvind Ganjewar Vs Shraddha Mahendra Ganjewar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

1286.23WP

¶3

2024:BHC-AUG:3980

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

977 WRIT PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2023

¶6

MAHENDRA ARVIND GANJEWAR VERSUS

¶7

SHRADDHA MAHENDRA GANJEWAR

¶8

Advocate for the petitioner : Adv.S.R.Bagal Advocate for Respondent : Adv.S.V.Kulkarni

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 16.02.2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1] Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2] The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 19.02.2010. From the said wedlock, the petitioner and respondent have two children. Since 2018, the respondent is residing with her parents along with her two children. On 21.08.2020, the respondent filed HMP No.29/2020 before CJSD, Biloli for restitution of conjugal rights. On 0909.2020, the respondent had also filed complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter on

¶13

¶14

1286.23WP

¶15

28.01.2021, petitioner appeared in HMP No.29/2020 and filed his written statement denying all contentions. On 23.11.2022, the matter reached the stage of evidence. The respondent examined herself and closed her evidence. The petitioner examined himself. The matter was adjourned for further evidence to 23.11.2022. However, the petitioner was absent on the said date due to personal difficulty and the CJSD, Biloli passed evidence close order against him.

¶16

3] On 13.01.2023, the application below Exh. 35 was filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside the evidence close order and seeking permission to lead further evidence. By the impugned order dated 13.01.2023, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli rejected the said application. While rejecting the said application, the trial Court has observed that the respondent – husband failed to lead evidence of witnesses and in the application also, nothing is mentioned to show as to whose testimony the respondent is likely to record. The court further observed that there is nothing to show as to how many witnesses, the

¶17

¶18

1286.23WP

¶19

respondent wants to examine. Thus, the Court held that the respondent wants to prolong the matter. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

¶20

4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to bring on record the CCTV footage, video recording and audio clips showing the unbearable conduct and behaviour of the present respondent which makes their cohabitation impossible and that his right to defend his case would be lost in the event opportunity is not granted to the petitioner.

¶21

5] Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not contesting the matter seriously. At the time of hearing of the present proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioner was absent. Thereafter, on multiple occasions also, the petitioner remained absent, due to which, the respondent has to face difficulty in conducting the proceedings.

¶22

¶23

1286.23WP

¶24

6] Having considered the rival submission, I deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. The impugned order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli below Exh.35 in HMP No.29/2020 is quashed and set aside. By way of last opportunity, the petitioner is granted opportunity to lead further evidence. However, it is directed that the petitioner would not seek adjournment without reasonable cause in the matter. The aforesaid amount to be paid to the respondent – wife before the trial Court.

¶25

7] Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶27

DDC

Mahendra Arvind Ganjewar v. Shraddha Mahendra Ganjewar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Arvind Ganjewar v. Shraddha Mahendra Ganjewar

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

Shital Yogesh Changlere vs Yogesh Omprakash Changlere

Sachin Vithalrao Thombare Vs Prajkta Sachin Thombare

Baburao F.Vartale Thru L.Rs.Tarabai and Ors. Vs Kali Masjid Trust Ahmednagar and Ors.

Murlidhar Narsing Biradar and Another Vs Kisan Dadarao Tarte and Others

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Thr Divisional Managaer Aurangabad Vs Kailaschand Bhartiya and Ors.

Mukund Shivgir Giri and Another Vs Acchut Sitaram Patharkar and Others