Govind Bhagirath Rathod vs Surekha Bhagwanrao Harkal
2017 Latest Caselaw 882 Bom

                                                                            91_WP1055016.odt


         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10550 OF 2016

Govind Bhagirath Rathod
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o 557, Hamal Galli, Samtha Nagar,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.                                     ..PETITIONER

               VERSUS

Surekha Bhagwanrao Harkal
Age: 25 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Ambika, Basmat Road,
Near Gandhi Vidhyalay, Sangam Colony,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.                                   ..RESPONDENT

                                   ....
Mr. A.R. Vyawahare, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.J. Mete, Advocate for respondent.
                                   ....

                                                     CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of both sides.

2. The case of the respondent is based upon the consent obtained

by fraud, resulting from making of false representation by the petitioner

to her that before marriage, the petitioner was a student of medical

1 / 3

91_WP1055016.odt

sciences, which was believed by the respondent and which made her to

give her consent for marriage with the petitioner, which fact was later on

turned out as false. As against such case of the respondent, the petitioner

has come with defence that prior to marriage, there was sharing of

relevant information between himself and the respondent and such

sharing took place at the hotels, where according to the petitioner, the

respondent had stayed with him overnight. The petitioner's further case is

that these hotels are from Ratnagiri, Mumbai and Latur and as the

respondent is denying the fact that she stayed with petitioner in these

hotels, it shall be necessary for him to examine the Managers of these

hotels.

3. Considering the basis of the case of the respondent and also

the defence of the respondent, I find that the application filed by

respondent seeking issuance of witness summons to these hotel Managers

is consistent with the pleadings in the written statement and therefore, an

opportunity ought to have been granted to the respondent to prove her

defence. However, by refusing to issue witness summons to these hotel

Managers, an opportunity of putting forward the defence has been denied

to the respondent. The impugned order is therefore unreasonable and

arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

2 / 3

91_WP1055016.odt

4. Writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order is

hereby quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit 43 is allowed.

Accordingly, witness summons shall be issued. Rule made absolute in

those terms. The Hindu Marriage Petition shall be finally disposed of

within a period of six months from the date of the order.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

3 / 3