Mr. Vilas Raosaheb Jadhav v. Mrs Aarti Vilas Jadhav
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION MST NO.17603 OF 2014 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.99 OF 2013 Vilas Raosaheb Jadhav ..Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Aarti Vilas Jadhav ..Respondent ...........
Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit. A. Karande for the Respondent.
Petitioner and Respondent present in person.
...........
CORAM: SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI & A. K. MENON, JJ.
(IN CHAMBER) DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2016 ORDER(PER A.K.MENON, J.):
The petitioner had filed a Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Bandra on the ground of cruelty and desertion being Petition No.A-1781/2009. This Petition came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 21st January, 2013. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Petition, the petitioner filed Family Court Appeal No.99 of 2013. This Family Court Appeal came to be dismissed on 16th January, 2014. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a Review Petition in relation to the order dated 16th January, 2014. The Review Petition was beyond time and application was made for condonation of delay for 132 days in filing
the Review Petition. Since the petitioner was then appearing in person, at his request Mr. Apte, Advocate was appointed to represent the petitioner. After the delay was condoned as aforesaid Advocates for both parties stated that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and they tendered Consent Terms by which the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and provisions were made in respect of the access to the child Yashwardhan. The Consent Terms were signed by both parties and their Advocates. The Review Petition therefore came to be disposed of in terms of the consent terms vide order dated 20th November, 2014 and the marriage stood dissolved by consent of parties.
2] About 16th January, 2015 the petitioner-husband filed the present Review Petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2014 and inter alia seeking to set aside the Consent Terms. This application was also beyond time by 36 days. However, in the interests of justice the delay was condoned. Vide order dated 30th November, 2015 notice was issued to the respondent. Both parties have since appeared before us along with their Advocates today. 3] Heard. In our view no grounds for review have been made out. The applicant-petitioner has admitted having signed the Consent Terms after having read it. He was also represented by an Advocate appointed at his request.
(i) Review Petition is dismissed.
(ii) There will be no order as to costs.
(A. K. MENON, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) wadhwa