Manisha Shrinivas Pawar Patil v. Shrinivas Ramakant Pawar Patil

1 WP - 10725-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10725 OF 2015 Manisha W/o Shrinivas Pawar (Patil), Age 27 years, Occu. Household, R/o C/o Subhash S/o Uttamrao Solanke, Gangamasla, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed .. Petitioner (Orig. Respondent)

Versus

Shrinivas S/o Ramakant Pawar (Patil), Age 32 years, Occu. Service, R/o Bhatangali, Tq. & Dist. Latur .. Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) ...

Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent ...

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 09-01-2019 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally, by consent.

2.

The petition has been moved against order 13-03-2015 whereunder the respondent herein has been permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of document referred to under exhibit 31 in Hindu Marriage Petition no. 65 of 2014 pending before civil judge, senior division at Majalgaon.

2 WP - 10725-2015 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, trial court appears to have considered the matter in quite some details and passed the impugned order.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent purports to refer to and rely on two decisions rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court viz. Parasanbai Dhanraj Jain and others Vs. Sunanda Madhukar Jadhav reported in 2017(6) ALL MR 877 and Karthik Gangadhar Bhat Vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh and another reported in 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 726 5.

Looking at the reasons which went into passing impugned order, although learned counsel for petitioner purports to question its sustainability, it does not appear that the order would suffer any infirmity. Impugned order has discussed various aspects in quite details. No case has been made out in writ petition about that reasons are contrary to considerations required to be taken into account and against any provision of law. It does not appear to be a matter which calls for interception under discretionary powers of this court. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6.

Rule stands discharged.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH] JUDGE arp/