JAYSHREE CHANDRAPRAKASH CHAVANversusCHANDRAPRAKASH KAILAS CHAVAN

                                    1                         41.odt


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                WRIT PETITION NO. 13624 OF 2025
             JAYSHREE CHANDRAPRAKASH CHAVAN
                                VERSUS
               CHANDRAPRAKASH KAILAS CHAVAN
                                    ...
              Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ade Ravindra B.
                     Respondent : Party-in-person
                                   …

                         CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                         DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026


PER COURT :

1.          The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 5th Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, dated 27.10.2025, passed

below Exhibit 85.

2.          It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent had

filed Hindu Marriage Petition no. 14/2016, against the Petitioner before

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, for seeking

divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3.          The Petitioner has filed written statement and denied the

contentions raised by the Respondent. The Respondent has led his

evidence and after closing his evidence, he has filed evidence close

pursis. The Petitioner has examined herself and other witnesses,
                                    2                        41.odt


thereafter filed another Application for recalling court witness who is

father of the second wife of the Respondent and also Sarpanch of the said

village.

4.           The Petitioner filed an Application Exhibit 47 praying for

issuing witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in the said

Application for examining the said witnesses. The Application at Exhibit

47 filed by the Petitioner for calling of the Court witnesses was rejected

against which the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ

Petition no. 884/2023, which was decided by this Court on 10.07.2025,

setting aside the impugned order which rejected the Application of the

Petitioner at Exhibit 47.

5.           In view thereof, the Application has been filed by the

Petitioner at Exhibit 85 with a prayer that the witnesses are refusing to

accept the summons Exhibit 85 bringing it to the notice of the Court that

the non-bailable warrants issued against the witnesses are being avoided

by them, purposefully. Therefore, he may be permitted to issue paper

publication for their service or else again summons may be issued to

them and to be served through police. This Application was filed on

03.10.2025, unfortunately this has been rejected by learned Judge vide

order dated 27.10.2025, by observing that in spite of trying to search the

witnesses on the given address they could not be served the bailiff report
                                       3                          41.odt


shows that the nearby residing people informed that, these persons have

not turned on the given address, since four to five days and the witness

Asha Chandraprakash Chavan, does not reside on the given address. In

view of the bailiff report, the Application has been rejected.

6.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn attention of

this Court to the bailiff report which discloses that the wife and son of

witness Rohidas Rathod, have refused to cooperate with the bailiff and

informed that they do not know whereabouts of the witness and his

mobile also appears to be switched off. Therefore, the non-bailable

warrant could not be served on him. Thus, from the aforementioned

report, it is apparent that the bailiff had tried to serve but it has been tried

to be avoided by the wife and son of the witness Rohidas Rathod.

Although the non-bailable warrant could not be served, the learned Judge

could have allowed the alternate prayer made by the Petitioner as

contemplated under Order XVI Rule 10, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, which empowers the Court to pass orders which reads thus :

             “10.Procedure where witness fails to comply with
             summons :
             (1)    xxxx
             (2)    xxxx
             (3) In lieu of or at the time of issuing such proclamation
             or at any time afterwards, the court may, in its
                                      4                        41.odt


               discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail,
               for the arrest of such person any may make an Order for
               the attachment of his property to such amount as it
               thinks fit, not exceeding the amount of the costs of
               attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under
               rule12 :
               Provided that no court of small causes shall make an
               Order for the attachment of immovable property. ”


7.             The Writ Petition is resisted by the Respondent who appears

in- person and is placing reliance on the orders passed by the trial Court

as well as this Court from time to time.

8.             In view of the alternate reliefs that could have been granted

as prayed in the Petition, impugned order rejecting his application is set

aside by allowing his application Exhibit 85.

9.             With the aforementioned directions, Writ Petition stands

disposed of.



                                          ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC