IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.748 of 2008. Writ Petition No.748 of 2008. Writ Petition No.748 of 2008. Mr. Vikas Rajkumar Agarwal ..Petitioner versus Mrs. Priya Vikas Agarwal ..Respondent Mr.S.S.Redekar for the Petitioner Mr.V.V.Pai i/b. Mrs. Nita Kedia for the Respondent Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 P.C. 1. The Family Court has refused to take the written statement of the petitioner-original respondent in petition No.C-113 of 2007 and that is how the present petition. 2. It appears from the perusal of the roznama, copy of which is annexed at page 24 to 27 that this petition is received in the court on 6.7.2007 and thereafter the matter was referred to the Marriage Counsellor. The purpose was to find out whether the parties can put an end to their dispute amicably. Thereafter, the advocates were appointed by parties and an interim application for maintenance was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner was sought to be served and summonses were issued. That is how prior to the -2- hearing of the interim application appearance came on record. It appears that in the month of July, August the Court was vacant and no presiding officer was available. This was the position till 30.10.2007. 3. It is in such peculiar facts and circumstances and when attempts to have the dispute reconciled before the Marriage Counsellor were pending, that it was expected from the President of the Family Court to allow the request of the petitioner-husband and take his written statement on record. That having not being done, the present petition had to be filed. 4. It is not as if the petitioner is guilty of gross delay. It is not as if the petitioner has not participated in the matter. All that he requested was that his written statement should be taken on record after he has shown his bonafides and even attended the counselling session. The learned President, therefore, could have entertained his request by imposing appropriate cost. 5. In the above circumstances, the direction -3- not to take the written statement of the petitioner on record, but to proceed without it is set aside. The petitioner to file his written statement within a period of one week from today after paying the cost quantified at Rs.1500/- ( Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the respondent wife. 6. I am informed that the matter is placed before the Family Court on 7.2.2008. The written statement, therefore, be taken on record if the same is tendered on that date. The learned President should give time to the petitioner to pay the cost which are quantified today. The cost to be paid within the period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to the wife, in the trial court. 7. Needless to state that the Family Court is free to consider the request for interim maintenance made by the respondent wife on its own merits and in accordance with law. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)