Vasant Annasaheb Matsagar Through His P.O.A. Holder- Ashok Annasaheb Matsagar v. Sau. Yogita Vasant Matsagar

(Order) (1) Review Appln. (Civil)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Review Application (Civil) No. 0166 of 2016 (In Second Appeal No. 0155 of 2014) District : Aurangabad Vasant s/o. Annasaheb Matsagar, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institution of Technology (I.I.T.), Hauzkhas, New Delhi-110016, Through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Ashok Annasaheb Matsagar, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, .. Applicant R/o. Plot No.16, Swatantra Sainik (Original Colony, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad. plaintiff) versus Sow. Yogita w/o. Vasant Matsagar, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. Present Gulabrao Rajaram Jadhav, .. Non-applicant Shivnagar, Kannad, Taluka Kannad, (Original District Aurangabad. defendant) ...........

Mr. V.B. Garud, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the non-applicant (Absent).

...........

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE : 03RD APRIL 2017

(Order) (2) Review Appln. (Civil) ORAL ORDER :

This Application is filed for review of the order made by this Court on 19.08.2015 in Second Appeal No. 155 of 2014.

02.

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant.

03.

Learned Advocate for the applicant - husband submitted that in divorce proceedings filed on the ground of cruelty, the written statement was filed by wife, in which, she had made wild and false allegations against the husband, that he had illicit relations with other woman. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that this ground ought to have been considered by the trial Court and also by the lower appellate Court.

04.

Learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nita @ Nathi Hitendrakumar Sakariya Vs. Hitendrakumar Kaluram Sakariya (2010(3) Mh.L.J. 568). The facts of the reported case were altogether different.

05.

If there were such allegations made by the non-applicant - wife against the applicant - husband, then issue in that regard could have been framed and such issue could have been decided. Thus, it was a matter of evidence and unless that was done, the point could not have been decided.

(Order) (3) Review Appln. (Civil) 06.

Submissions made and the order made by this Court shows that this point was not argued when the Second Appeal was heard on merits. Thus, the contention made is beyond the scope of review. 07.

Hence, the Review Application is rejected.

( T.V. Nalawade ) JUDGE ...........

puranik / RA166.16