Ashwini Rahul Shinde vs Rahul Chhagu Shinde

As on earlier dates, parties expressed that they have settled the dispute and therefore, Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, learned Counsel of this Court was appointed to assist the parties in drawing the Consent Terms. Accordingly, Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, learned Counsel had prepared the Consent Terms by discussing with both the parties.

¶14

Page 1

¶15

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶16

Akash Tayde

¶17

However, today, the parties state that, it is not possible for them to agree on all the terms. Thus, as the parties are not agreeable on all the terms, the said Consent Terms cannot be taken on record.

¶18

This Court places on record the appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, learned Counsel.

¶19

The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 20^th May 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai below Exhibit-30 in Petition No.A-328 of 2019 by which the said Application filed on 11^th April 2025 seeking setting aside “no cross” order dated 22^nd August 2024 has been dismissed.

¶20

The learned Judge of the Family Court has recorded in the impugned order that the examination-in-chief of the Petitioner was filed in the year 2021 and the no cross order has been passed in August 2024. It is further recorded that no W.S. order has also been passed and the said order has not been challenged. The

¶21

Page 2

¶22

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶23

Akash Tayde

¶24

learned Judge, Family Court also recorded that the Petitioner is taking judicial proceedings at her leisure and convenience and that the Petitioner has not given any reason and therefore, rejected the Application.

¶25

Mr. Dhakal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is an uneducated lady and she is working as a maid servant. Her Advocate has not even informed her about the Court proceedings and that she is single handedly maintaining the daughter who is 9 years old. He submits that when the daughter was 1 year old, the Petitioner was thrown out of the house and for last 8 years the Petitioner is single handedly maintaining the child and herself by working as maid servant. He submits that for a fair trial, the Petitioner be granted opportunity of cross-examining the Respondent.

¶26

On the other hand, Ms. Bait, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the Affidavit-in-lieu of examinationin-chief has been filed in the year 2021 and thereafter the matter is adjourned on number of occasions for conducting crossexamination. She further submits that the contention that

¶27

Page 3

¶28

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶29

Akash Tayde

¶30

Petitioner was thrown out of the house is totally incorrect and Petitioner has herself left the house. She, therefore, submit that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶31

There is substance in the contention that, the Petitioner has not taken prompt actions and the perusal of the record also shows that inspite of several adjournments the Petitioner has not conducted the cross-examinations. No cross order is passed in on 22^nd August 2024 and the Application seeking setting aside nocross order is filed on 11^th April 2025 i.e. after about 8 months.

¶32

However, it is also required to be noted that the Petitioner is an uneducated lady and she is working as maid servant. It is admitted position that, for last about 8 years the daughter is single handedly being maintained by the Petitioner who is a maid servant and the Respondent- Husband has not contributed even a single rupee towards maintenance of the child as also the maintenance of the Petitioner- Wife. It is significant to note that, the Petition has been filed seeking divorce by the Respondent- Husband in the year 2019 and till date, Application seeking maintenance has not been

¶33

Page 4

¶34

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶35

Akash Tayde

¶36

filed by the Petitioner for herself and even for her daughter and also seeking litigation expenses.

¶37

However, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the DV proceedings are filed, however, not attended by the Respondent- Husband. As per the Respondent he is not aware of any such DV Proceedings.

¶38

Thus, it is clear that Petitioner has got no proper legal Assistance.

¶39

The Respondent – Rahul Shinde who is personally present in Court states that, he will pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the daughter. The said statement is accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties and as undertaking given to the Court.

¶40

In view of the above discussion and in the interest of justice following order is passed :-

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

(a) Impugned order dated 28^th May 2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai below Exhibit-30 in Petition No.A-328 of 2019 is quashed

¶43

Page 5

¶44

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶45

Akash Tayde

¶46

and set aside.

¶47

(b) Exhibit-30 Application filed in Petition No.A-328 of 2019 seeking setting aside order of no cross dated 12^th August 2025 is allowed.

¶48

(c) The Respondent- Rahul Shinde shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance of the daughter on or before 10^th day of each month. First such payment of Rs.3,000/- is made by the Respondent to the Petitioner today, in cash.

¶49

(d) The Petitioner- Ashwini Shinde is at liberty to file Application seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter and also seeking litigation expenses as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in said Petition No.A-328 of 2019. Such Application is to be filed on or before 05^th January 2026 when the Petition No.A-328 of 2019 is scheduled to be heard. If such Application is filed, the learned Judge of the Family Court shall decide the same expeditiously, on or before 31^st March 2026. It is made clear that, if such Application is filed, then unless such Application is decided the trial shall not proceed

¶50

Page 6

¶51

904-WP-10044-2025.DOC

¶52

Akash Tayde

¶53

further.

¶54

(e) The Petitioner is also liberty to file application seeking setting aside “No WS” order. If such application is filed the same be decided in accordance with law.

¶55

(f) The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Mumbai is requested to appoint two Para-Legal Volunteers to assist the Petitioner- Ashwini Shinde to pursue the said Petition No.A-328 of 2019.

¶56

The receipt dated 11^th November 2025 issued by the Petitioner of receiving the amount of Rs.3,000/- in cash from the Respondent is tendered in the Court. The same is taken on record and marked ‘Y’ for Identification.

¶57

This Court places on record the appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, learned Counsel.

¶58

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

¶59

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶60

Page 7

Ashwini Rahul Shinde v. Rahul Chhagu Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Rahul Shinde v. Rahul Chhagu Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indusind Bank Ltd. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale (Applicant) vs Ramchandra G. Morbale and Anr. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale - Applicant

Kishor N Shah vs Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd.

Sudhanshu Samrat Prasad vs Kavita Sudhanshu Prasad

Amit Arjun Bhivande vs Priyanka D/O Narayan Jadhav

Ajay Pramod Shirvastav vs State of Maharashtra

Popat Tukaram Bhangire vs State of Maharashtra