Sau. Prachi Mahadeo Mundalik And ... vs Mahadeo S/O Vishnupant Mundalik
2016 Latest Caselaw 6147 Bom

                                                1                      MCA-36.16.doc


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                  
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2016




                                                          
     1.       Sau. Prachi Mahadeo Mundalik
              Age 29 years, occup. service,
              r/o c/o Sanjivani Suresh Lolge,
              Behind LIC Office, Shivaji Road,




                                                         
              Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur,
              District Ahmednagar

     2.       Saish s/o Mahadeo Mundalik,
              Age 1-1/2 years, r/o as above                        .. Applicants




                                             
                      versus
             Mahadeo s/o Vishnupant Mundalik
                              ig                                   .. Respondents
                    ------
     Mr. P. P. Khandagale Patil, Advocate for applicants
                            
                                      CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                      DATE :        18th October, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT :
      

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

counsel for applicants finally.

2. Despite availing several opportunities, none appears for the

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants points out that applicant

no. 1 is not in a position to attend to the proceedings filed by

respondent at Jalna due to various reasons.

4. Additionally, learned counsel refers to that criminal

proceedings bearing regular criminal enquiry application no. 267

of 2015 filed by applicant no. 1 against respondent is pending

2 MCA-36.16.doc

before the court at Shrirampur and further that as a retaliation to

the same, respondent has initiated proceedings bearing hindu

marriage petition no. 235 of 2015 before the court of 5 th Joint Civil

Judge, Senior Division at Jalna. He submits, respondent is

attending the proceedings at Shrirampur.

5. It is further being contended that having regard to the

historical background, it is not advisable to ask the applicant to

attend to the proceedings at Jalna.

6. In the absence of appearance of respondent, aforesaid

contentions go un-controverted and to a large extent also are an

indication of non resistance to the same.

7. In view of aforesaid, miscellaneous civil application is

granted in terms of prayer clause (B) and is disposed of.

8. Rule made absolute accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd