Writ Petition No. 3225 of 2009 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh hearing after giving
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 24
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent also submitted that on the date of filing of the application below Exh.8 and on the date of hearing, some relevant documents were not in custody of respondent and therefore she could…
Judgment
Shri Hemant Surve, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. C.E. Gaikwad, advocate for respondent. ..PETITIONER RESPONDENT CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :-
Heard the learned counsel Mr. H.S. Surve, for the petitioner and Smt. C.E. Gaikwad for respondent.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent the matter is taken on board for final hearing. 2
Present writ petition is preferred by the original petitioner in divorce petition No. A- 373/2008 challenging the order dated 28th April, 2009 passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad below Exh. 8 i.e application of respondent-wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- p.m.
A few facts of the present case are as under :- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial Court without giving any opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2009. The petitioner raised specific ground in his petition about the same which reads as under :- vii. “The petitioner says that he is marked as absence in the impugned order at the start of paragraph No.3. It is a specific grievance of the petitioner that he was very much present on the notified date of
28.04.2009, when the matter was called out. The Honourable Court on verifying the physical presence of both the litigating parties, straightway started dictating the impugned order. After the order was dictated, the Petitioner submitted that he wanted to argue the matter, whereupon he was told that the order is already passed and he should wait to sign the order. The petitioner says that this occasioned at about 11.30 hours and 3 at 13.10 hours, the bench clerk of the Honourable Court, directed the litigating parties to sign the order-sheet as a proof of noting down the impugned order. The petitioner thus says that he was never heard in the matter before passing of the impugned order.”
Operative part
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent also submitted that on the date of filing of the application below Exh.8 and on the date of hearing, some relevant documents were not in custody of respondent and therefore she could not able to submit the same before the Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent states that now the respondent is in possession of relevant documents to show that the petitioner is earning handsome amount from his business as well as from the rental income. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, I feel that in the interest of justice it is necessary that the matter to be remanded back to the family Court for deciding afresh. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.04.2009 passed by the Family Court Aurangabad below Exh.8 in petition No.A-373/2008 is set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both sides to file their affidavit, documents and other evidence. Writ Petition disposed off with the above directions. aaa/3225.09 ... ( K. K. TATED ) JUDGE.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh hearing after giving
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Sep 2009. The bench was K K TATED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.