Prashant Hanumant Dhole v. Pratibha Prashant Dhole

2025:BHC-AS:4992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.617 OF 2024 Prashant Hanumant Dhole ...

Petitioner versus Pratibha Prashant Dhole and Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Robin Thomas, for Petitioner.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

24 JANUARY 2025 P.C.

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

This Petition is filed to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for having committed contempt of the Court by filing false and forged medical certificates in support of Misc. Civil Application No.257 of 2023 filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No.A-1257 of 2015 from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Court at Panvel.

3.

The substance of the Petition is that the Petitioner had addressed a notice to the Medical Officer who had purportedly issued medical certificates, relied upon by the Respondent No.1. In response thereto, the Medical Officer has informed that there is over-writing in the prescription of Shaswati Health Care Clinic and the date is also over-written. The Petitioner, SSP 1/3

therefore, prayed for initiation of action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against Respondent No.1 - the wife of the Petitioner, and the Respondent No.2 - Advocate, who represented Respondent No.1, and the Respondent No.3 - the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, who had provided legal aid to the Respondent No.1.

4.

Mr. Thomas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner informed the Court that MCA No.257 of 2023 was eventually disposed of. 5.

I have perused the averments in the Petition. Evidently, in the wake of matrimonial dispute, a number of proceedings have been filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. They have turned completely astray. The things have come to such a pass that Criminal proceedings have also been filed. In the instant Petition, the allegation is that false medical certificates were tendered. The Petitioner proposes to rope in Respondent No.2, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and even the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, through whose aegis the legal aid was provided to the Respondent No.1. This shows the extent to which the bitterness between the parties has reached. As the parties are already embroiled in litigation, the Court does not find any justifiable reason to add one more proceeding. 6.

In these circumstances, especially having regard to the fact that MCA No.257 of 2023 came to be eventually disposed of, this Court does not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to entertain the Petition. SSP 2/3

7.

The Contempt Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/02/2025 20:19:53