Bombay High Court
DR MANALI GULSHANRAJ HAMRAPURKAR AND ANRversusGULSHANRAJ IQBALSINHA HAMRAPURKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the respondent is permitted to cross‑examine the petitioner and file a written statement, with costs imposed on him.
Summary
The petitioners, a wife and her minor children, filed a writ petition challenging orders of the Family Court that allowed the husband (respondent) to cross‑examine the wife and to file a written statement in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance proceeding. Earlier, the Family Court had issued "no‑cross" orders against the husband, but later set them aside. The petitioners argued that allowing cross‑examination would only prolong the case, while the respondent contended that he would cross‑examine without seeking adjournments and deserved a fair chance to contest the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that in the interest of justice the respondent must be permitted to cross‑examine and file a written statement, and consequently dismissed the writ petition, ordered the respondent to pay costs, and directed him to conduct the cross‑examination in two sessions without adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent should be allowed to cross‑examine the petitioner‑wife despite earlier "no‑cross" orders.
- Whether the respondent should be permitted to file a written statement in the maintenance proceeding.
- Whether the writ petition seeking dismissal of the Family Court orders should be entertained.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- family court
- cross‑examination
- writ petition
- costs
- adjournment
Judgment
85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17092 OF 2024
1. Dr. Manali Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar
2. Akhil Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar
3. Aarya Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar
(The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor) ...Petitioners
VERSUS
Gulshanraj Iqbalsinha Hamrapurkar ...Respondent
Digitally signed
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.10.05
KILAJE +0530
10:49:06
Mr. Aditya Desai, Advocate for Petitioners.
Advocate S.R.Soni a/w D. Mishra for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 27.06.2023
and 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bandra, whereby the
learned Judge has allowed the respondent to cross examine the petitioner-
wife and has permitted the respondent to file written statement.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that on the
earlier two occasions “no-cross” order was passed against the respondent,
but thereafter the said order was set aside and he was permitted to cross
examine the petitioner-wife. However, he did not cross examine the
petitioner-wife. He wants to prolong the matter. The matter is at the
Page 1 of 3
85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc
S.S.Kilaje
argument stage. The learned Judge should not have allowed the
respondent to cross examine the petitioner-wife. Learned counsel further
submitted that the learned Judge has permitted the respondent to file
written statement, which amounts to prolonging the matter and requested
to allow the petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that
respondent undertakes to cross examine the petitioner-wife in two sessions
and he will not seek any adjournment before the Family Court. A fair
opportunity should be given to the respondent to contest the petition filed
by the petitioner-wife and requested to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused documents
produced on record. The petitioner-wife has filed petition for maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent is her husband. “No-cross”
order was passed against the respondent. It appears from the record that
earlier also “no-cross” order was passed against the respondent. In the
interest of justice, it is necessary to give opportunity to the respondent to
cross examine the petitioner-wife and file written statement. In view of
above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
Page 2 of 3
85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc
S.S.Kilaje
(ii) The respondent-husband shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to
the petitioner-wife within two weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
(iii) The respondent shall cross examine the petitioner in two
sessions and shall not seek any adjournment subject to her
presence before Family Court.
(iv) The respondent is permitted to file written statement.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.