Anjali W/O Sachin Tak vs Sachin S/O Ravindra Tak

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1856 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
Anjali W/O Sachin Tak vs Sachin S/O Ravindra Tak on 19 April, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
                                  1                  MCA - 56-2016


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2016

Anjali W/o Sachin Tak,
Age : 26 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o : C/o : Pandharinath Asaram Dahiwal,
Plot No. 13, 14, "Shivshakti Housing Society",
Harsool, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad                                  .. Applicant

     VS.

Sachin S/o Ravindra Tak,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Near Gajanan Maharaj Temple,
Navale Nagar, Gulmohar Road,
Ahmednagar,
Taluka and District : Ahmednagar                           .. Respondent

                                ----
Mr. Govind A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant
None present for the respondent though served
                                ----

                                CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 19-04-2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent despite couple of chances.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that after lodging two proceedings at Aurangabad at her instance, the ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2017 00:52:21 ::: 2 MCA - 56-2016 proceedings bearing Hindu Marriage Petition no. 568 of 2015 has been lodged for dissolution of marriage by respondent at Ahmendnagar. He refers to host of difficulties being faced by the applicant. He submits that it is difficult for the applicant to attend to the proceedings at Ahmednagar instituted by the respondent.

4. In the absence of resistance to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant as aforesaid, and, particularly having regard to that respondent is already attending to proceedings at Aurangabad, it appears to be expedient to grant the application.

5. As such, miscellaneous civil application stands granted in terms of prayer clause (B) and is disposed of.

6. Rule made absolute accordingly.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH] JUDGE arp/ ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2017 00:52:21 :::