1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1613 OF 2011 (Madhukar S. Khobragade .vs. Smt. Panchfula M. Khobragade and Ors.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. Heard Mr.J.A.Anthony, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for respondent no.1, Mr.S.C.Mehadia, Adv. for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.J. Mokadam, Adv. for respondent no.4. Perused the earlier order of this Court dt. 22.7.2008 passed in Second Appeal No.636 of 2005 and compromise order as also compromise dt.7.11.2009 in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2004. Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2004 was filed by Madhukar, his second wife Shobha and their issues for declaration that respondent no.1 Panchafulla is not legally wedded wife. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the present petition are not parties to that suit. In the compromise as recorded, a statement appears that respondent no.1 Panchafulla would not object 2 to petitioner's addressing Shoba as his wife. Panchauflla has also declared that she will not claim any amount/benefit payable by respondent nos. 2 and 3 on account of service of petitioner with them. In view of this compromise, petitioner Madhukar has sought direction from this Court to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to add the name of Shoba as his wife in his service record. Mr.S.C.Mehadia, Adv. as also Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. point out that, as yet, there is no divorce between the petitioner and Panchafulla and this Court in Second Appeal has specifically directed removal of name of Shobha from service record of petitioner with respondent nos. 2 and 3. We have perused the judgment delivered in Second Appeal, which shows that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are party thereto and present respondent no.4 was not party in that Second Appeal. In this situation, it is apparent that, by compromise recorded on 7.11.2009 by the Chandrapur Court, the marriage between the petitioner and Panchafulla cannot be said to have been dissolved. Therefore, direction to add the name of Shoba sought against respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot be given. It is to be noted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not parties to 3 compromise as recorded by the Chandrapur Court. We find that the grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is misconceived. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais