Ratnamala Vishnu Bhalerao vs Vaishali Deepak Rokade
2023 Latest Caselaw 4097 Bom

   Gokhale                             1 of 3                           901-wp-4366-23


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2023

 Ratnamala Vishnu Bhalerao                                       ..Petitioner
       Versus
 Vaishali Deepak Rokade                                          ..Respondent

                           __________
 Mr. Bhushan Raut a/w. Sachin Mane for Petitioner.
                           __________

                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                               DATE : 24 APRIL 2023
 PC :

 1.            The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the Respondent.

 The Petitioner's son passed away on 10/05/2021 due to Covid-19.

 The Respondent had filed an application for restitution of conjugal

 rights before the Family Court at Pune. The Petitioner's son had

 filed a counter claim seeking divorce. The Petitioner's son's divorce

 claim was dismissed; against which he had filed Appeal No.82 of

 2012 which is pending before this Court, as submitted by learned

 counsel for the Petitioner. There was some arrears of maintenance.

 Vide order dated 07/05/2022 passed in Darkhast No.11 of 2017

 the Mediator Judge, Family Court Pune accepted the consent terms

 and an amount of Rs.5,54,000/- was paid to the Respondent for




::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 06:43:28 :::
                                       2 of 3                           901-wp-4366-23


 arrears of maintenance. The Respondent has filed Special Civil Suit

 No.2101 of 2022 against the present Petitioner for directions to the

 Petitioner to pay certain amount as the Respondent claimed to be

 wife of the deceased son of the petitioner and there was no

 divorce. In the said special civil suit an application for attachment

 before Judgment was preferred by the Respondent under O.38,

 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. That application at Exhibit-5 was partly

 allowed by the Trial Judge vide his order dated 09/01/2023. Vide

 that order the Petitioner was directed to furnish security in the

 sum of Rs.51,14,991/-.


 2.            Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

 Petitioner is 83 years of age. She was shown as nominee in the

 bank records in respect of the sum which the Respondent is

 claiming.


 3.            I have perused the impugned order. At this stage, there is

 nothing to show that the divorce was granted to the Petitioner's

 son. However, the Petitioner was shown as a nominee for most of

 the amounts claimed by the Petitioner. Ultimately, legal rights will




::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023                   ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 06:43:28 :::
                                         3 of 3                            901-wp-4366-23


 have to be determined for disbursement of the amount. Therefore,

 the suit will have to proceed. So far as, question of furnishing

 security of the amount till the decision of the suit is concerned;

 considering this background, it is necessary to hear the Respondent

 in this case.


 4.            Hence, the following order:


                                                 ORDER

i) Issue Notice to the Respondent, returnable on

25/07/2023.

ii) Stand over to 25/07/2023.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)