1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2009 P.V. Laxminarayan........ Petitioner versus Mrs. Laxmi Shetty ........Respondent. Mr. C.H. Belindage adv. for the Petitioner Mr. C.M. G. Shastri i/b. M/s. Shashtri & Co. adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. Heard. The present petitioner is the husband whereas the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner husband under sec. 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) i.e. cruelty and desertion. The petitioner did not contest the said proceeding by filing written statement or otherwise. The petitioner husband appeared only once before the Marriage Councilor and thereafter did not appear before the court at all, which prompted the court below to pass the impugned order refusing to set aside the order of “no w.s.” and ‘no cross’ passed by the court earlier. Perusal of the orders dated 14th and 21st August 2009 passed by this court reveal that the respondent wife had 2 shown her willingness to withdraw all allegations and agreed to have a divorce by mutual consent by amending the petition into one Under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. The counsel for the respondent wife had also assured this court that no maintenance would be claimed by the wife. Order dated 21-8-2009 reads thus: “ The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband) on instructions of the petitioner states that he is agreeable for conversion of the pending petition into a petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is agreeable to adopt the said course as the respondent has agreed not to claim maintenance and to withdraw the allegations. The learned counsel appearing for the parties pointed out that the matter is fixed before the Family Court on 24th September 2009. The parties will remain present before the Family Court on the next date and will apply for conversion of the petition into a petition under section 13-B of the said Act of 1955.” 2. It is not in dispute that though agreed before this court the husband did not appear before the Family Court and as such the petition could not be converted into one under section 13-B. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner husband submits that the petitioner is not agreeable for divorce and would like to litigate. It does appear that the petitioner is not litigating bonafidely. The petitioner, it seems, is only interested harassing the 3 respondent wife. Despite having agreed for a divorce before this court and acting on the said assurance, the matter having been adjourned on many occasions. Today the petitioner wants to retract from whatever he has agreed before this court earlier. Being of the view that the petitioner is not acting bonafidely, no indulgence need to be shown to the petitioner by entertaining the petition. Even otherwise perusal of the impugned order reveals that all through out the petitioner remained absent and when the matter was finally fixed for argument, an application was moved for setting aside “no w.s.” order and order which directed “no cross”. The grounds set out in the application is that the husband was suffering from Jaundice. No medical papers were placed before the court below to substantiate the fact of illness. As no medical papers were placed on record, the trial court has rejected the application. Even in this petition no medical papers are filed on record to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and the said ailment prevented him from appearing before the Family Court. 3. In the result there being no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the interim order stands vacated. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)