Surendra S/O Giriraj Khandelwal vs Sau. Smita W/O Surendra ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3749 Bom

            J-cwp449.15.odt                                                                                                1/3   


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                                            
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.449 OF 2015




                                                                             
            Shri Surendra s/o. Giriraj Khandelwal,
            Aged about 41 years,




                                                                            
            Occupation : Business,
            R/o. Plot No.5-6, H-1 Block, 
            Kunwarsingh Marg, Redar Road,
            Near Rishal Garden Nangloi, Delhi.                                          :      PETITIONER




                                                          
                               ...VERSUS...
                                 
            Sau. Smita w/o. Surendra Khandelwal,
            Aged about 31 years,
                                
            Occupation : Nil,
            R/o. C/o. Dharmadas Wasnik,
            Empress Mill, Qtr. No.65, 
            Bezonbagh, Nagpur.                                                           :      RESPONDENT
      
   



            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Shri A.B. Bambal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
            Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate for the Respondent.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-





                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 12 JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. On going through the impugned order, I find that the

J-cwp449.15.odt 2/3

learned Judge has not recorded any finding on the aspect of

desertion of the petitioner by his wife, who is respondent in this

petition. There is also no finding as to whether or not the

respondent is entitled to receive interim maintenance. These

findings were necessary in view of the fact that it is the contention

of the petitioner that he was and is always ready to cohabit with the

respondent and it is the respondent, who has illegally left his

company. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that

there has been extreme cruelty on the part of the petitioner towards

the respondent and that is the reason why the respondent is unable,

for the present to reside along with the petitioner. He submits that

in the past, the respondent was compelled to lodge a police report

against the petitioner and not only that, the conduct of the

petitioner is such that he is not interested in cohabiting with the

respondent. He submits that the petitioner did not attend the

hearing before the mediator and that he has also not initiated any

proceedings for restitution of his conjugal rights.

3. Considering the arguments of both sides, I am of the

view that even though there is no specific finding regarding

entitlement of the respondent to receive interim maintenance, this

will not be a fit case for making any interference in the impugned

J-cwp449.15.odt 3/3

order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is well settled law that it is not necessary, while exercising such

extraordinary writ jurisdiction, for the Court to upset every order,

which is erroneous. If the facts and circumstances of the case

warrant no interference, the erroneous order need not be interfered

with.

4. Having regard to the argument made on behalf of the

respondent, I am of the view that this is a case wherein the

extraordinary jurisdiction may not be exercised by this Court, there

being no prejudice caused to the petitioner. At the same time, the

request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for expediting final

decision in the case could be favourably considered.

5. In the result, this petition deserves to be dismissed and it

is dismissed accordingly.

6. However, it is directed that the Petition No.E-77/2014

be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible

and preferably within one year from the date of order.

JUDGE

okMksns