1 WP.4894.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4894 OF 2011 Anuradha Prakash Joshi ...Petitioner/Orig. Petitioner Vs. Prakash Vinayak Joshi & Anr. ...Respondent/Orig. Respdts Mr. Tejas Dande, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 5TH JULY, 2011 P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has impugned the orders dated 4th May 2011 and 6th June 2011 of the Family Court, Pune. The order dated 4th May 2011 makes a reference to two detailed orders passed on 7th April 2011 and 26th April 2011. 2. The order dated 7th April 2011, Exhibit-C to the Petition grants a decree of divorce to the parties based upon their respective applications for divorce. The legality and validity of that order is challenged in an appeal filed before the Division Bench of this Court. 3. The order dated 26th April 2011 came to be passed on the application made by the wife making a grievance about the order of divorce passed. The learned Family Court Judge dismissed the application. The learned Judge reasoned that the Petition was expedited, extention of time was granted, that time was to end in July 2011 and hence the matter must proceed. 2 WP.4894.2011.sxw 4. The wife’s application for maintenance was required to proceed. The wife made another application again not to proceed with the Petition and to stay the petition. That application came to b rejected on 4th May 2011. Thereafter the matter came to be adjourned to 5th May 2011 and thereafter to 9th May 2011. These orders have not been annexed to the Petition, but Counsel on behalf of the parties state that the Petition was kept on 5th May 2011 and later on 9th May 2011. On 9th May 2011 cross examination of the husband, which was in progress was closed. Thereafter the husband made an application on 1st June 2011 to lead some further evidence of other witnesses, which also came to be rejected by the learned Judge on 1st June 2011. The application was adjourned to 6th June 2011. Thereafter the wife made an application to cross examine the husband. The application shows that she needs to give evidence “to produce the document” and she applied to file additional evidence. 5. The learned Judge rejected that application on 6th June 2011 on the ground that many similar types of applications made earlier were rejected earlier with reasons. Thereafter the application came to be adjourned to 13th June 2011. Arguments on behalf of the husband are stated to have been heard by the learned Judge on that date though the noting of that date is not produced. 6. Thereafter, the application was adjourned to 29th June 2011 for the arguments on behalf of the wife. 3 WP.4894.2011.sxw 7. Instead of arguing her application for maintenance the wife has filed this Petition on 29th June 2011. 8. The application was thereafter adjourned to 6th July 2011. The Petitioner has not impugned the orders dated 13th June 2011 or 29th June 2011. 9. The Petitioner has impugned the order dated 6th June 2011 and 4th May 2011 to challenge those orders. The Petition could have been filed much earlier, but has been filed on 29th June 2011. In the interregnum the learned Judge of Family Court has proceeded to hear the application in accordance with law, with the specific mandate of this Court of extension of time and the further time granted to dispose off the application as a time-bound application. 10.The Counsel on behalf of the husband states that the wife’s application for maintenance was pending since 2007. In that application she has led evidence. The husband’s cross examination was recorded on 25th August 2008. Thereafter it was deferred. The application, is therefore, an old application for maintenance of the wife, which required to be disposed off in her own interest. It was expedited by this Court also in her own interest. It would grant the maintenance that she claimed or whatever was considered fit and proper expeditiously to her. 11.It is seen that the wife has delayed her own application. The Family Court was willing to hear her, but she was not willing to be heard. 4 WP.4894.2011.sxw Despite the expedition by this Court and the further time granted making it time bound expedition she applied for stay. She applied for adjournment on the ground that her appeal against the decree of divorce was pending. This was though it had nothing to do with her application for maintenance, which was to be decided on completely different parameters. 12.It is seen that the learned Judge has taken efforts to comply with and obey the order of the High Court. The High Court has taken effort to pass specific directions in the interest of the wife. The Writ Petition to challenge the innocuous interim orders without putting forth the case on merits is prima facie seen to be completely lacking in bona fides. Even the very application of the wife dated 6th June 2011 “to produce the document” and to file additional evidence years after her evidence was closed shows mala fides and an intent to defeat and delay the proceedings adopted by herself. 13.The filing of the Writ Petition itself smacks of mala fides and mischief. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)