1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5221/2010 PANKAJ SHARMA ..VS.. EERA SHARMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011. Heard the petitioner in person and Miss Athlye, the learned counsel for the respondent. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court, refusing to stay the petition filed by the respondent for grant of decree of divorce. It is the case of the petitioner that the petition for grant of decree of divorce, has been filed by respondent mischievously, and on false and frivolous grounds and hence, it is necessary to stay the suit filed by the respondent for grant of decree of divorce. It is the case of the partitioner that he had filed proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and hence it was all the more necessary for the trial court to stay the suit filed by the respondent for grant of decree of divorce. The trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 31.7.2010. The court observed that the petition filed by the 2 petitioner was for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the respondent had deserted him. It is further necessary to note that the respondent had filed a petition for grant of decree of divorce on the ground that the petitioner had inflicted mental cruelty on the respondent. Hence the trial court observed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issues involved in both the cases were not identical and therefore, it was not necessary to stay the petition filed by the respondent/ wife for grant of decree of divorce. The court rightly held that the disposal of both the petitions was depended on the merits of each of the cases and it was not necessary to stay the petition filed by the respondent for grant of decree of divorce. Since the impugned order is just and proper and suffers from no error, much less a jurisdictional error, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction . The writ petition therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP