Bombay High Court
KISHOR PARSHURAM DHUMALversusANJALI KISHOR DHUMAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The High Court held that the delay in filing the application did not preclude the petitioner’s right to examine witnesses and quashed the Family Court’s order.
Summary
The petitioner, Vaishali Anil Tikam, filed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that rejected his application to examine five witnesses. The Family Court had dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed more than two years after the issues were framed, exceeding the 15‑day filing period. The petitioner argued that evidence had not yet been taken and that the delay should be condoned. The High Court examined whether the procedural time limit was mandatory or could be relaxed in the interest of justice. It held that the delay, though considerable, did not bar the petitioner’s right to examine witnesses and that the Family Court’s order was erroneous. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order, allowed the petition, and permitted the examination of the five witnesses, while also ordering the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to examine witnesses filed after a delay of 2½ years.
- Whether the statutory requirement of filing such an application within 15 days of issue framing is mandatory or can be condoned.
- Whether the delay in filing the application warrants dismissal of the petitioner's request for witness examination.
Subjects
- Family Court
- Witness examination
- Procedural delay
- Quash order
- Cost award
- Civil appellate jurisdiction
- Writ petition
Judgment
98-WP-16891-2025 (C).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16891 OF 2025
VAISHALI
ANIL Kishor Parshuram Dhumal
TIKAM
Versus
Digitally signed Anjali Kishor Dhumal
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.08.04 _________________________________________________________________
15:26:38 +0530
Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w. Swaraj M. Savant, for Petitioner.
Ms. Trushna Timir Shah for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st JULY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent.
2. The challenged in this petition is the impugned order passed by
the Learned Family Court below Exhibit 159 whereby the learned Family
Court has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner to examine five
witnesses in support of his case.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has strongly objected to
allow the petition on the ground that the said application was filed after
more than 2 years’ delay and no sufficient cause is given to examine the
witnesses. The learned Family Court has passed well reasoned order and
requested to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the impugned
Page 1 of 2
98-WP-16891-2025 (C).doc
Tikam
order. Issues are framed, Petitioner wants to examine witnesses in
support of his case. The Family Judge has rejected the application on the
ground that such application is supposed to be filed within 15 days after
framing of the issues and it was filed with unreasonable delay of 2 ½ years.
In my view yet evidence of petitioner is not started and petitioner is
seeking to examination witnesses in support of his case. Hence I pass
following order:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed. The impugned order below Exhibit 159 is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine five
witnesses mentioned in application.
(ii) Petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…