(1) (902) WP 2745/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2011 Ruchita Anant Gulare .. Petitioner Vs. Anant Bhagoji Gulare .. Respondent Mr. Mayur D. Sapkale for the Petitioner. Mr. Digambar G. Poman h/f Mr. Pratap F. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 28 th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard both Advocates. 3. The Petitioner-wife has challenged the order of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 24th December, 2010 which rejects the application for time to file Written Statement. 4. The wife made an application because she had changed her Advocate. 90 days period has expired. The Court concluded that time could not be given for any reason. The Court has not exercised its discretion on merits of the case. The Petition is of 2009 when even older Petitions are pending before the Court. 5. Advocate on behalf of the wife was directed to show the Court the Written Statement which was prepared by the Petitioner-wife for filing. (2) (902) WP 2745/11 6. There has not been unreasonable delay in filing the Petition. The delay has not occasioned out of malafides. There was no effort by the Respondent-wife to defeat and delay the proceeding. Both the parties require to be heard on merits. The Family court must consider the claim on merits before technicalities of time. Hence the Written Statement which is shown to have been prepared since some time must be directed to be filed. Hence the following order : 7. The Petitioner-wife shall file her written statement on the next date of hearing in the Family Court. The Family Court shall take the Written Statement on record. The Petitioner’s Advocate shall serve a copy of the Written Statement upon the Respondent or his Advocate forthwith. The Family Court shall proceed on merits of the claim of the parties in due course. Rule is made absolute to that extent. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)