Mohit S/O Shankarraoji Thool vs Ms Megha D/O Bhimraoji Uke ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3631 Bom

            J-cwp391.16.odt                                                                                                   1/5


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                            
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                              
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.391 OF 2016


            Shri Mohit s/o. ShankarRaoji Thool,




                                                                             
            Aged 31 years,
            Occupation : Unemployed,
            Resident of Lane No.1, 
            Behind Awale Flourmill,
            Ward 15, BhimNagar, 




                                                          
            Nagpur 440 027.                                                             :      PETITIONER
                                 
                               ...VERSUS...

            Ms. Megha d/o. BhimRaoji Uke,
                                
            (Ex-wife of Mohit S. Thool)
            Aged 29 years,
            Occupation : Self-employed,
            Resident of Uke House, lane No.4 L,
      


            Uke Flourmill, Near JaduMahal,
            Chandramani Nagar, 
   



            Nagpur-440 027.                                                             :      RESPONDENT


            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-





            Shri A.S. Bhalotia, Advocate for the Petitioner.
            Shri B.M. Kasare, Advocate for the Respondent.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 7 JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

J-cwp391.16.odt 2/5

counsel for the respondent.

2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India read with Sections 482 and 407 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The prayers made in this petition/application are as

follows : ig " 1. May kindly call for Record and Proceedings of ER 167 of 2013 Megha vs. Mohit, u/s.

125(3) CrPC, from learned family court number 4 judge Nagpur, for just examination; and

2. May kindly quash, cancel and set aside all warrants, orders, proclamation, etc. against

petitioner ex-husband in maintenance arrear

recovery, e.g. ER 167/13, by Lrnd trial court; and, i.e. Hon'ble Family Court No.4, Nagpur.

3. May kindly stay, keep in abeyance and suspend taking any coercive action for any

maintenance order's enforcement, issuance and execution of any warrant, etc., against petitioner ex- husband, pending this petition; and by Hon'ble Family court-4, Nagpur.

4. May kindly allow ad interim reliefs

in terms of above prayer clause 3; and

5. May kindly withdraw all Record and Proceedings, e.g. (i) ER 167 of 2013, (ii) ER 241/15,

(iii) McrA 63/15, (iv) A 291/15 and (v) D 7/13, between above parties, pending in Lrnd family court 4 Nagpur, and transfer to any other Lrnd family court, Nagpur, for fast trial, hearing and

J-cwp391.16.odt 3/5

finalisation; and

6. May kindly direct Lrnd family court for just considering overall case of petitioner ex- husband and R & Ps as a whole, and dispose

maintenance and arrear recovery, afresh, within a month, while not taking any coercive action against him till final order; and

7. May kindly grant him other reliefs, deem fit, necessary and proper on merits, facts and circumstances of the case."

5. It is clear from the above prayers that all the prayer

clauses except for the prayer clause (5) contain vague submissions

and prayers and, therefore, they cannot be allowed. As regards the

prayer clause (5), transfer of proceedings mentioned therein has

been sought by the petitioner. The ground for making such a

prayer is that the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court has

been passing orders from time to time without taking into

consideration the pleadings of the petitioner, the material available

on record and the ratio of various cases cited before the learned

Presiding Officer. If this is the ground and it is true then the

petitioner would have a very good case on merits, provided he

chooses to challenge those orders. In fact, as stated by the learned

counsel for the respondent, those orders were also challenged from

time to time in the past on various occasions by the petitioner and

J-cwp391.16.odt 4/5

the petitioner could not succeed in any of those challenges made

earlier. In any case, passing of the orders, without following the

principles of law would not by itself be a ground for transfer of the

proceedings from one Court to another. The petitioner would have

to show some bias on the part of the concerned Presiding Officer.

That has not been shown by the petitioner. The petitioner has also

not produced before this Court any material reflecting on the bias

or prejudice of the Presiding Officer in passing various orders. In

these circumstances, the prayer made for transfer of the

proceedings to some other Court cannot be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced for my

perusal some applications made by him. However, they do not

show anything which could be said to be of rendering any support

to the case of the petitioner.

7. The writ petition has no substance and same deserves to

be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed.

8. The amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court be

permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.

9. The proceedings which are pending before the Family

Court No.4, Nagpur stand expedited and the learned Presiding

Officer is requested to finally dispose of these proceedings in

J-cwp391.16.odt 5/5

accordance with law at the earliest and in any case within four

months from the date of order.

JUDGE

okMksns