dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7121 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7121 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7121 OF 2008 Ritika Ratan Pawar ...Petitioner Vs. Ratan B. Pawar ...Respondents. Mr.Neel Helekar i/b.Smt.Anjali for the Petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th October, 2008. : 18th October, 2008. : 18th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 23rd September, 2008 invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by saying that as the matter was dismissed without giving opportunity or hearing the other side, it ought not to have been restored, specifically when it was dismissed in the presence of respondent/petitioner.. 2. The court has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under: "4. I have heard both the learned Advocates on this application. It is true that the petition was restored to file after dismissal, within five months. The order of dismissal had not been signed by me as the petitioner and his advocate entered the Court within five minutes of the dismissal order. It may be that the Respondent and her advocate had left the court room. At first instance, I directed the petitioner to look out for the respondent if ( 2 ) she was available in the Court premises. As she was not found around, and it was a very short while since the order on dismissal had been passed, I through that it was unfair to direct the petitioner to prefer a separate Misc.Application and give notice thereof to the respondent. It is a normal practice of this court that if the party remains absent and such other order of dismissal on closure of cross-examination is passed and the party appears within 5 to 10 minutes of passing of the order, it is just and proper for the court in the interest of justice to recall the order of dismissal, especially when it is not signed. 5. This being a family court, the C.P.C. cannot be strictly applied in every case although it has got to be complied wherever necessary. I do not think that I have crossed the limit of the provisions of C.P.C. as contemplated under Order 9 Rule 8 and 9. My order which is impugned before me is very clear on the fact that I have directed the petitioner to give notice to the respondent immediately on that every day and inform her of the said restoration of the petition, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was held up by his mother’s side and she was just operated. The court cannot be so harsh and ignore the fact as it is often quoted in several judgments that Family Curt matters cannot be dealt with like civil and criminal matters as they are matters of the heart. " 3. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Even otherwise fact remains that immediately on the same day within five minutes of the dismissal of the order, a request was made to restore the same. Therefore, without going further into the various other aspects as ( 3 ) contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, including applicability of C.P.C. to the family court, the matters and proceedings and as observed above, I see there is no reason to interfere with the same. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)