1 wp9572-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2010 Ms.Desire Gary Sewell ..Petitioner v/s. Mr.Gary Herbert Sewell ..Respondent Mr.Nikhil Karnawat for the petitioner . Mr. Abhijeet Sarawate for the respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent has filed petition in the Family Court at Pune i.e. P.A.No.795 of 2009 through Constituted Attorney. The petitioner herein filed application before the learned Judge of the Family Court calling for registered address of the respondent under Order 6 Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by Order dated 16.10.2010. The application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.10.2010, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2 wp9572-10.sxw 2. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the petition is filed by the respondent through Constituted Attorney and residential address of the respondent i.e. Mr. Gary Sewell is not mentioned in the cause title of the petition or anywhere in the body of the petition and the address of the constituted attorney has been furnished. In the course of arguments in support of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken me through the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Court Act, and it is submitted that it was mandatory for the respondent to furnish his residential address. In instant reply to the petition, learned Counsel Mr. Sarawate appearing on behalf of the respondent took me through the prayer of the application and pointed out that prayer in the said application was to seek registered address as contemplated under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He had submitted that the respondent has complied with the said provisions and the learned Judge has observed accordingly. He pointed out that there is a definite distinction between the residential address of a party and registered address of the party. On this limited ground 3 wp9572-10.sxw itself, I have considered the petition. I am inclined to observe that the original application filed by the petitioner is misconceived. If the petitioner wanted the respondent to furnish his residential address by relying upon certain provisions of law, it was necessary for the petitioner to make a specific prayer in that behalf. It is on this ground, the application itself is misconceived. Consequentially, there is no need to set aside the impugned order by which the main application has been rejected. 3. Needless to mention that if the petitioner expects that the respondent should furnish his residential address in accordance with the provisions of law, it will be open for the petitioner to file an application seeking specific prayer in that behalf. If such an application is filed, the said application shall be disposed of on merits. This court has not expressed any views on the demand of the petitioner calling upon the respondent to furnish his residential address. 4. Before I part with the judgment, it is required to be mentioned that the learned Judge of the Family Court, while passing Order dated 4 wp9572-10.sxw 16.10.2010 accepted the stand of the respondent and came to the conclusion that a false complaint has been filed by the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to the relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned order which is as follows: “ Thus , considering the purpose of this provisions and the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present application is filed by the respondent with the revengeful attitude and ill-will against the petitioner as arrest of the petitioner could not be effected in the false complaint filed by her u/sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code which she has also filed after a long period after filing of this present petition for divorce”. He submitted that these observations made by the learned Judge of the Family Court were not required to be made in as much as the learned Judge of the Family Court had no jurisdiction to pass comments upon the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 498A of I.P.C. After having perused the relevant paragraph, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge of the Family Court ought 5 wp9572-10.sxw not to have said whatever is mentioned in the aforesaid portion. Those remarks were unnecessary and may come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting the complaint under Section 498A of the I.P.C. In my view, the learned Judge of the Family Court had no jurisdiction to pass those comments. Hence relevant portion appearing in paragraph 4 of the said order is required to be expunged though I do not wish to interfere in the operative part of the order, namely rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed. ORDER i) No interference is required in the impugned order dated 16.10.2010. If the petitioner wants that the respondent should file in the court his residential address, it will be open for the petitioner to make a specific application in that behalf with specific prayer. This court has not expressed any views on the contentions raised by the petitioner that it was the duty of the respondent to furnish to the court his residential address. Following portion, namely, “ Thus , considering the purpose of this provisions and the 6 wp9572-10.sxw circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present application is filed by the respondent with the revengeful attitude and ill-will against the petitioner as arrest of the petitioner could not be effected in the false complaint filed by her u/sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code which she has also filed after a long period after filing of this present petition for divorce”. appearing in paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated 16.10.2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.3, Pune in Order below Exhibit 42 in P.A.No.795 of 2009 stands expunged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]