Bombay High Court

CHARUSHILA @ SHAILAJA BHIMRAO JADHAVversusBHIMRAO TARAKCHAND JADHAV

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The appeals were dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the appellant's counsel's repeated unexplained absences.

Summary

The appellant, Charushila @ Shailaja Bhimrao Jadhav, filed two family court appeals (Nos. 26 and 24 of 2020) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Manoj M. Kadtu, repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings on 29.01.2026, 13.02.2026 (after being granted accommodation), and 24.03.2026, without providing any reason. The Court had warned that any further absence would result in dismissal. Since the advocate remained absent again on the next date, the Court dismissed both appeals for non‑prosecution, without ordering costs. No substantive merits of the underlying family disputes were addressed.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the appellant's advocate repeatedly fails to appear without justification.

Subjects

procedural law
non‑prosecution
advocate absence
dismissal of appeal
family court appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15092-DB

                                                                 902-FCA-26-2020 (+).odt
                                            {1}


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        902 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2020
                                         WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4410 OF 2020 IN FCA/26/2020

                            Charushila @ Shailaja Bhimrao Jadhav
                                          VERSUS
                                Bhimrao Tarakchand Jadhav

                                         WITH
                          FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
                                         WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4356 OF 2020 IN FCA/24/2020

                            Charushila @ Shailaja Bhimrao Jadhav
                                          VERSUS
                                Bhimrao Tarakchand Jadhav
                                              ......
            Mr. Manoj M. Kadtu, Advocate for the Appellant (absent)
            Mr. K.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respodnent
                                              ......

                                         CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                                 HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                          DATE    : 08 APRIL, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.     Learned Advocate for the appellant in both the matters is absent

            without assigning any reason once again. Earlier also, he remained

            absent on 29.01.2026. Thereafter, on 13.02.2026, on his request,

            accommodation was granted; however, he was again absent on

            24.03.2026.
                                                         902-FCA-26-2020 (+).odt
                                    {2}

2.         By our order dated 24.03.2026, it was made clear that the said

opportunity was the last chance and that if the learned Advocate for the

appellant remained absent on the next date, the appeals are liable to be

dismissed.


3.         In view of the continued absence of the learned advocate for the

appellant without assigning any reason, we dismiss both the appeals for

non-prosecution. No order as to costs.



[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]                     [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
             JUDGE                                     JUDGE


S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…