Bombay High Court
Balaji Keshavrao Tumbalwad vs Arti Balaji Tumbalwad on 18 October, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Y. G. Khobragade
(1) 936 wp 953.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITON NO. 953 OF 2021
Balaji Keshavrao Tumbalwad
Age: 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Dombivali (West)
Dist. Thane. .. Petitioner
Versus
Sau. Arti w/o. Balaji Tumbalwad
Age: 32 yrs. Occu. Service,
R/o Jadhavwada, Karva Nagar,
Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. .. Respondent
...
Mr. Moinpasha Shaikh Farid h/f. Kanade Angad L., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishnu Jaware, Advocate for the respondent.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 18th October, 2022
JUDGMENT:- (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
2. The petitioner (husband) invoked jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issuance of direction to
the learned Family Court, Jalna to decide Petition No. A-I/75/2021 (original
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 04:25:26 :::
(2) 936 wp 953.21
HMP No.234/2017) expeditiously preferably within a period of three months
from the date of order of this Court.
3. In short, the petitioner (husband) filed a proceeding bearing HMP
No.234/2017 before the learned C.J.S.D., Jalna under Section 13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the present respondent (wife) and prayed
for decree of dissolution of marriage which was solemnized on 15.02.2013.
According to the petitioner, on 15.08.2013 his marriage was solemnized with
the respondent at Shivaji Mangal Karyalaya, Kautha, Nanded as per Hindu
custom and rites and out of their wedlock they are blessed with child namely,
Atharva. Initially, respondent-wife co-habited with him at Itwara, Nanded and
for a few days she behaved with him properly, however, subsequently the
respondent-wife was suspecting on his character and on that count she was
physically and mentally torturing him. The petitioner was serving in Police
department as Constable at Mumbai but subsequently he has been transferred
at Nanded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed HMP No.234/2017 for dissolution
of marriage, however, during the pendency of the said petition on 11.08.2021
said HMP No.234/2017 was transferred to the file of learned Family Court,
Jalna and as per order no.A-I/75/2021 dated 09.08.2021 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jalna, the same proceeding was re-
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 04:25:26 :::
(3) 936 wp 953.21
registered vide Petition No.A-202/2021 but it is not finalised, hence, prayed
for issuance of direction for expeditious disposal of the matter.
4. On 22.06.2022, this Court passed an order and called a status
report of Petition No. A-202/2021 from the file of learned Family Court, Jalna.
Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Jalna submitted status
report of the matter which shows that on 29.08.2017 the petitioner instituted
petition for dissolution of marriage. On 12.10.2017 the respondent-wife
appeared in the matter and filed written statement (Exhibit-12) on
18.12.2017 along with the interim application for maintenance vide (Exhibit-
14). On 15.01.2018 the petitioner filed his reply to interim application vide
(Exhibit-16) and said application was promptly decided by the learned Trial
Court. Thereafter, on 11.06.2018 the learned trial Court framed issues at
(Exhibit-18). On perusal of Roznama it shows that the petitioner and
respondent submitted various applications and the learned Trial Court fixed
the matter as per schedule, so also on 10.06.2022 and 18.06.2022 the
petitioner himself was absent and for some time the Court's work was
suspended due to pandemic (Covid-19). The petitioner has not brought any
substantial material on record to show that due to conduct of the learned Trial
Court there is delay while deciding Petition No.A-I/75/2021 (old HMP
No.234/2017). However, on the face of record it appears that, when the
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 04:25:26 :::
(4) 936 wp 953.21
petitioner was discharging his duty as Police Constable at Mumbai he was not
diligent and after his transfer at Nanded he has filed present petition and
praying for expeditious disposal without considering the pendency of the
matter on the file of learned Trial Court. Therefore, we do not find that the
petitioner has made out any substantial case for issuance of direction as
prayed for. Not only this but the petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the
respondent-wife to this Court due to which financial burden is cast upon the
respondent-wife. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to
compensate the respondent-wife with appropriate cost. In view of above
discussion, we are not inclined to grant the present petition and proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER:
I) The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-
payable by the petitioner to the respondent-wife within a period
of four weeks from today or in alternative the petitioner should
deposit the said cost before the Trial Court within four weeks
from today and on deposit of the same the learned Trial Court
may release the said amount in favour of the respondent-wife.
II) Rule is discharged.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
mub
