Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O. Suresh Bodhale vs Sau. Sushma Sachin Bodhale on 24 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 wp6197.15 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6197 OF 2015
Sachin s/o Suresh Bodhale,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o. Plot No.2, Apana Ghar Scheme,
Visava Naka, Godoli,
Satara. .. Petitioner
.. Versus..
Sau. Sushma Sachin Bodhale,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Nil,
R/o. C/o. Sau. Savita Sanjay Patil,
Plot No.119, Shri Mahalaxmi Apartment,
Nelco Housing Society, Subhash Nagar,
Nagpur. .. Respondent
..........
Shri Sudhir Moharir, Advocate for petitioner,
Smt. Jyoti Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent.
..........
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.2015
passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur thereby
allowing the application filed by the respondent for grant of temporary
injunction. By the said order, the petitioner has been restrained from
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:57:55 :::
2 wp6197.15 (J).odt
causing obstruction and restraining the respondent from staying in the
suit property. It is submitted by Shri Moharir, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the suit property is a house situated at Satara. According
to him, initially the proceedings for dissolution of the marriage were filed
by the petitioner at Satara. Subsequently, during pendency of the
application for interim relief, these proceedings were transferred to the
Family Court at Nagpur. It is, therefore, submitted that the Family Court
at Nagpur would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim order with
regard to the property situated beyond its jurisdiction.
[3] This submission is opposed by Smt. Jyoti Dharmadhikari, the
learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that no reply was
filed to the application below Exh.19 by the petitioner and this objection
is being raised for the first time in the present proceedings. It is further
submitted that the Family Court has jurisdiction to pass the interim order
as has been done by the order passed below Exh.19.
[4] Consideration of the documents on record indicate that the
respondent had filed application below Exh.19 for grant of interim
injunction in relation to the house property situated at Satara. This
application was moved when the proceedings were pending before the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. Admittedly, no reply was filed by
the petitioner to the aforesaid application. The objection as to
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:57:55 :::
3 wp6197.15 (J).odt
jurisdiction is being sought to be raised for the first time in the present
writ petition.
[5] In my view, this question goes to the root of the matter and it
would be appropriate if the petitioner moves the Family Court at Nagpur
and raises this question of jurisdiction. The same can be done by
permitting the petitioner to apply for review/vacation of order dated
8.10.2015 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
following order is passed :
O R D E R
(1) If the petitioner moves the Family Court, Nagpur with an
application seeking review of the order dated 8.10.2015 on the ground
that the Family Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to pass the same, said
application shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with
law after giving the opportunity to the respondent. Till such period, the
order dated 8.10.2015 shall continue to operate.
(2) The points raised by the petitioner in that regard are kept open.
If such application is moved within a period of two weeks from today, the
same shall be decided on merits without going into the question of delay.
(3) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Gulande, PA
