1 W.P.3090.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3090 OF 2010 Smt. Savitrabai Wd/o Surechandra Khatod ...PETITIONER. VERSUS Kokilabai W/o Nandlalji Chichani and others ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. P.N.Kalani,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 18 Other Respondents though served, but are absent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 06TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. By consent of the learned Advocate appearing for the parties, I thought it fit to dispose of this Writ Petition at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Writ Petition challenges the ex-parte order passed on application Exh. 9, in Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2008, by 2 W.P.3090.10 learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, on 29th March, 2010. The petitioner is plaintiff in the suit. Application Exh.9 is her application for maintenance pendent lite. This suit is filed seeking partition and separate possession of the petitioner’s share in the joint family property. 4. It is her case that, her husband was member of the joint Hindu family, and since prior to his death, which occurred in 1993, joint family property was not subjected to the partition, she would be entitled to partition and separate possession of her share. As said above, Exh.9 is her application seeking maintenance during pendency of suit. 5. Her application was opposed by the defendants including present respondent No.18, but when application was taken up for hearing, the petitioner and her Advocate were absent. The learned Judge, then proceeded to her application, and having regard to the evidence, respondents/defendants, he thought it fit to reject the application. Without hearing submissions of the petitioner or her advocate, the learned Judge passed this order on merits. I think the application should have been decided after hearing the petitioner or her Advocate, because the claim of the petitioner in the application and opposition give rise to several complicated questions of fact, I am, therefore, inclined to set aside this impugned order and remand the case back to the the lower Court, so that Exh.9 can be decided after hearing 3 W.P.3090.10 petitioner or her Advocate. The petition is remanded back to the concerned Court. While setting aside the impugned order, I should not understood to have examined the merits of the application. The impugned order stands set aside. The learned trial Judge to decide the application Exh. 9 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her Advocate. I hope, the petitioner shall remain present before the trial Court on next occasion. Sd/- [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] MTK ok