Ashwini Sandeep Yalgi vs Sandeep Vasant Yalgi
2021 Latest Caselaw 926 Bom

                                                                                         35.wpst.927-21.doc

                 Bhogale

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 927 OF 2021

                           Ashwini Sandeep Yalgi                         .. Petitioner
                                    vs.
                           Sandeep Vasant Yalgi                          ..Respondent
                                                      ------------------------
                           Mr. Rohan Cama I/b. Ms. Sapana Rachure for the Petitioner.
                           Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Respondent.
                           Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State.

                                                      ------------------------

                                                     CORAM           : M.S.KARNIK, J.

                                                     DATE            :    JANUARY 14, 2021

                           P.C.:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

appearing for the wife is that she could not engage services of a

lawyer as the Respondent-husband failed to pay the maintenance Digitally signed by Diksha

amount as ordered by the Family Court. Learned counsel Diksha Rane Rane Date:

2021.01.14 17:21:22 +0530

submitted that the Petitioner had fled the Writ Petition (St.) No.

13847 of 2019 in this Court as the Respondent-husband wrongly

interpreted some earlier orders passed regarding payment of

maintenance. By an order dated 13.08.2020 this Court allowed

the Petition and directed the Respondent to continue to pay

35.wpst.927-21.doc

interim maintenance in terms of the order earlier passed by the

Family Court.

3. As the Respondent-husband did not pay the arrears of

maintenance an application has taken out by Petitioner-wife for

striking the defence before the Family Court. Learned counsel for

the Petitioner submitted that there are some other applications

also pending before the Family Court which have to be decided in

terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of

2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503 of 2018.

4. It appears that as the Petitioner-wife was appearing in

person she could not efectively represent her case. The Family

Court proceeded with the hearing of the matrimonial proceedings

between the parties and posted the same for judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that though the

arrears have been paid but according to the Petitioner, there is a

short payment of Rs.50,000/- by Respondent-husband.

6. In any case learned counsel would submit now that the

arrears have been received by the Petitioner, she would be in a

35.wpst.927-21.doc

position to engage a lawyer and prayed for an opportunity of

efective representation before the Family Court in the interest of

justice.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that

Respondent has paid all the arrears in terms of the order dated

13.08.2020 passed by this Court. Nonetheless learned counsel

for the Respondent assures that the Respondent-husband will

abide by the orders passed by this Court and furthermore he says

that henceforth the maintenance amount will be directly paid to

the Petitioner-wife. The statement is accepted.

8. Considering the controversy and having regard to the

nature of the litigation, in my opinion, interest of justice would be

sub served if an opportunity is given to the Petitioner-wife to

engage a lawyer in the matrimonial proceedings before the

Family Court only for the purpose of fnal arguments. The Family

Court is requested to permit the Petitioner to engage an

advocate and hear the arguments of the parties and then fnally

decide the proceedings. This exercise may be completed within

a period of 6 weeks from today.

35.wpst.927-21.doc

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions submits

that the Petitioner would not press the application for striking of

the defence and dismissal applications without prejudice to the

rights and contentions of the Petitioner.

10. As regards the other applications fled by the Petitioner, the

Family Court is free to deal with the same and pass appropriate

orders thereon in accordance with law. There is no manner of

doubt that the Family Court will take into consideration the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha &

Another while considering the Applications.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondent has invited my

attention to paragraph 12 of the order passed by this Court in

Writ Petition St. No. 13847 of 2019 where the Family Court is

requested to dispose of the proceedings preferably within a

period of 4 months. Considering the order passed by this Court

today it is necessary to extend the time to dispose of the

proceedings by further period of 6 weeks from today.

12. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

35.wpst.927-21.doc

13. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant

of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email

of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)