Allowed

Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar v. Siddhesh Paralkar

Bombay HC18 Apr 2024WP/5790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Family Court order rejecting an application for passport renewal documents for a minor son, the single judge directed the husband to supply required documents within one week and expedited the pending diversion proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to supply passport and Aadhar card copies via email within one week and ordered expedited hearing of pending PA No. 363 of 2020.

Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar Vs Siddhesh Paralkar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/4

¶3

905 - WP 5790 OF 2024.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.04.20 14:21:05 +0530

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2024

¶8

Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar….. Petitioner

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Siddhesh Paralkar

¶11

….. Respondent

¶12

Mr.Abhijit Sarwate for the Petitioner (Thr. Video Conferencing).

¶13

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶14

 DATE : 18 APRIL, 2024

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

This petition has been filed by the wife challenging an
order dated 11 March, 2024 passed by the Family Court, Pune,
thereby rejecting an application of the wife filed for direction to
the husband to provide documents for the renewal of the
passport of son Tanish.

¶17

2.Mr. Sarwate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/

¶18

wife submits that the passport authority has kept the application
for renewal of the passport of the son on, hold. He submits that
having a passport is a right which cannot be denied in law.

¶19

KVM

¶20

2/4

¶21

905 - WP 5790 OF 2024.doc

¶22

3. Heard. I have gone through the documents on record.

¶23

4. The reason for which the Family Court has rejected the

¶24

application of the wife is that the petition filed by the wife for
divorce is at the evidence stage. The issues were framed on 5
January, 2022. the wife without adducing the evidence, had filed
an application seeking directions for payment of amount.
Thereafter again similar kind of application was preferred by the
wife. On 4 August, 2022, the petitioner filed an affidavit of
evidence. Thereafter, an application for child access and
payment of arrears of maintenance is filed by both the parties.
The Court has therefore held that even though the matter is for
evidence, but it cannot proceed with the evidence. Since,
applications after applications are made by the petitioner.

¶25

5.The Family Court has further observed that on 31 January,
2024 an application was preferred by the wife seeking directions
to the husband as regards renewal of the passport of son Tanish.

¶26

KVM

¶27

3/4

¶28

905 - WP 5790 OF 2024.doc

¶29

The Court observed that the passport of the son had expired on
15 February, 2021 i.e. three years back. Hence, the Court has
rejected the application filed by the wife.

¶30

6. The Court according to me has rejected the application of

¶31

the wife since the application of the wife is not in clear sense
seeking which kind of document is required from the husband.
And the Family Court had taken into consideration that the
petitioner wife was not ready to proceed with the evidence of the
matter.

¶32

7.According to me, suffice will be the purpose if without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the husband, he is
directed to supply the documents as mentioned by the wife in the
e-mail dated 3 February, 2024; and the hearing of the Family
Court, petition is expedited.

¶33

8. The writ petition is disposed of with following directions :-

¶34

KVM

¶35

4/4

¶36

905 - WP 5790 OF 2024.doc

¶37

(i) The hearing of P.A.No. 363 of 2020 is hereby

¶38

expedited.

¶39

(ii)Both the parties would not seek any unnecessary

¶40

adjournment in the pending P.A.No. 363 of 2020.

¶41

(iii)The respondent husband after being
communicated of this order, should by e-mail within a

¶42

span of one week supply copy of his passport along
with Aadhar Card to the e-mail I.D. of the
petitioner/wife.

¶43

(iv)The said e-mail I.D. is on page no. 63 of this

¶44

petition.

¶45

9. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

10. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶47

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar v. Siddhesh Paralkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar v. Siddhesh Paralkar

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

Shri Vasant Shankar Thorat Since Deceased Throu. His Representative Vs Sadanand Kadu Shetty

Michele Boutique through Its Partners and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer) vs Smt. Aruna Anant Bhoir (Since Deceased) Thr. Her Lrs. Shri Manoj Anant Bhoir and Ors.

Kunika Rajesh Patil Vs Rajesh Panditrao Patil

Mr Nilesh Parakh vs Mrs Prachi Parakh Nee Prachi Sawant Wo Nilesh Parakh

Rakesh Ramashankar Singh Vs Tilak Khetshi Shah Since Dec Thr Lrs and Anr.