Bombay High Court
MITESH RUPSINH TAWADEversusGOURI MITESH TAWADE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the Family Court’s order and allowed the petitioner to file the additional affidavit of evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Mitesh Rupsinh Tawade, challenged a Family Court order that rejected his application to file an additional affidavit of evidence, which had been filed pursuant to a prior High Court direction. The petitioner argued that the Family Court should have allowed the affidavit since it complied with the High Court’s earlier order. The respondent contended that the Family Court’s order was well‑reasoned and that the cross‑examination evidence was already underway, urging dismissal of the petition. The High Court examined the procedural context and noted that the additional affidavit related to documents already on record and was filed as directed by the Court. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Family Court’s order, permitted the petitioner to file the additional affidavit, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to file an additional affidavit of evidence filed under the direction of the High Court
Subjects
- Family Law
- Affidavit of Evidence
- Procedural Law
- High Court Jurisdiction
- Appeal
- Evidence
Judgment
4-WP-11251-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 of 2025
Mitesh Rupsinh Tawade ...Petitioner/s
Versus
Gouri Mitesh Tawade and anr. ...Respondent/s
________________________________________________________________
Ms. Pooja Gadekar, Advocate for Petitioner (through VC).
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated
19th May 2025 passed by the Family Court, Pune, below Exhibit 67,
whereby the learned Family Judge rejected the application of the petitioner
for filing an additional affidavit of evidence.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this
Court, by order dated 26th March 2025, granted leave to the petitioner to
file a fresh application seeking leave to file an additional affidavit of
evidence on record. Accordingly, the application was filed before the
learned Family Judge, Pune, but the learned Family Judge rejected the said
application on the ground that there is no pleading regarding the
additional affidavit of evidence. As the additional affidavit of evidence was
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM filed as per the direction of this Court, learned Judge should have allowed
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
KADAM it, hence, requested to allow the petition.
Date: 2026.08.20
14:03:11 +0530
Page 1 of 2
4-WP-11251-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the
learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is
required in it. The evidence of the petitioner's cross-examination has
already started, and requested to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order.
The additional affidavit of evidence was filed as per the order of this Court.
The learned Judge should have considered this fact and allowed the said
application.
5. The additional affidavit of evidence is in respect of documents
which are already on record. Considering this fact, I pass following order:
ORDER
1. The impugned order dated 19th May 2025 passed by the Family
Court, Pune, below Exhibit-67 is quashed and set aside.
2. The petitioner is permitted to file the additional affidavit of
evidence on record.
The petition is disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…