Bombay High Court

DR. PRAJWALIT SUNDARRAO RAUT.versusSAU. PRIYANKA PRAJWALIT RAUT.

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court allowed the application, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the Family Court Appeal to its original stage.

Summary

The applicant filed an application seeking restoration of Family Court Appeal No. 72 of 2024, which had been dismissed on 31.07.2026 for non‑prosecution because the appellant allegedly failed to take steps against the respondent. The court noted that the bailiff report indicated the respondent was cohabiting with the appellant, but the applicant later submitted that this was incorrectly stated and provided a new address for the respondent, who could not be located at the earlier address. The court found that the dismissal was solely due to the lack of a proper address for service and saw no reason to issue notice to the respondent before restoring the appeal. Consequently, the application was allowed, the dismissal order was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its original stage. The application was then disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of the Family Court Appeal for non‑prosecution can be set aside due to improper service and lack of a correct address of the respondent.
Whether notice to the respondent is required before restoring the appeal.

Subjects

Family Court Appeal
Restoration of appeal
Service of notice
Non‑prosecution
Procedural defect
Family law

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                    946 CA 10110-2026.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10110 OF 2026
                                IN
                FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2024

                  DR. PRAJWALIT SUNDARRAO RAUT
                             VERSUS
                   SAU. PRYANKA PARJWALIT RAUT

                                   ...
          Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Kishor J. Ghute Patil
                                   ...

                   CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                   DATED :       SEPTEMBER 03, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Heard learned counsel for the applicant.



2.    The application is filed for restoration of Family Court Appeal

No. 72 of 2024, which was dismissed for non prosecution vide order

dated 31.07.2026 on the ground that appellant did not take steps

against the respondent/wife.



3.    On perusal of the said order, it further appears that the bailiff

report in respect of service upon the respondent/wife indicated that,

she had already started cohabiting with the appellant/husband.

However, today the learned counsel for the applicant submits that it

was wrongly stated by the father of the respondent/wife that she was

cohabiting with the appellant/husband. He further placed on record
                                  (2)
                                                  946 CA 10110-2026.odt
fresh address of respondent/wife, as she could not be found on her

earlier address.



4.     Thus, it appears that the matter was dismissed only for want of

detail address of the wife, and therefore, we do not find any reason to

issue notice to the respondent/wife for restoring this appeal.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed and order dated

31.07.2026 stands recalled. Family Court Appeal No. 74 of 2024 is

restored to its original stage.



5.     The application stands disposed of.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                 JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…