← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/15533/2024disposed off

Ventatesh Pandharinath Bodkhe v. Pragati Ventakesh Bodkhe And ANR

2025-06-20Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse2 pages

902.15533.24 wp.docx Iresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15533 OF 2024 Venkatesh Pandharinath Bodkhe .....Petitioner Vs.

Pragati Venkatesh Bodkhe and ors .....Respondents Mr. Pandit Kasar for the petitioner CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

IRESH MASHAL DATE :

20th JUNE 2025 by IRESH MASHAL Date:

2025.06.21 15:09:35 +0530 ORDER:

1.

This petition is filed by the respondents in an application filed under Section 25 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By the impugned order, the petitioner's application for issuing summons to the Manager of Bajaj Finance Company Limited is rejected. The learned Judge has rejected the application on the ground that it is not the applicant's defence that the applicant i.e. respondents herein had taken hand loan from Bajaj Finance Company Limited. The respondents have applied for enhancement of the maintenance amount. Hence, considering the stage of the application, the learned Judge rejected the 1/2

902.15533.24 wp.docx application by observing that only to prolong the hearing of the application, the petitioner has applied for issuing witness summons.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the original applicant has not disclosed any loan account. However, the petitioner has subsequently learnt about the loan account. Hence, he has applied for issuing witness summons.

3.

I have perused the papers of the petition. The arguments made on behalf of the petitioner are not supported by any pleadings. The learned Judge has therefore, rightly rejected the application for want of any pleadings for the purpose of issuing witness summons.

4.

I do not see any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. It is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

[GAURI GODSE, J.] 2/2