Bombay High Court
RAJESH ARJUN GAWALIversusJYOTI RAJESH GAWALI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The order based on the duly signed settlement document is valid and not vitiated by any fraud or illegality.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Arjun Gawali, challenged a common order dated 06.02.2025 that was based on a settlement document (Exhibit 73) which he alleged was fraudulently obtained by suppressing paragraph 9. He claimed the order imposed an arbitrary liability and threatened action against the lawyer who signed the settlement. The respondent, Jyoti Rajesh Gawali, contended that both parties were fully aware of the settlement terms, that paragraph 9 was not concealed, and that the petitioner was in default of maintenance for the respondent and a minor child. The court observed that the settlement document was signed by both the petitioner and his lawyer, and no evidence was presented to prove non‑disclosure or fraud. Consequently, the court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of alleged non‑disclosure of a settlement clause (paragraph 9) on the validity of the order based on that settlement?
- Whether the impugned order is vitiated by fraud or procedural impropriety?
- Whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and minor child?
Subjects
- settlement
- fraud
- maintenance
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- impugned order
- disclosure
Judgment
56-WP-2657-2026=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2657 OF 2026
Digitally
Rajesh Arjun Gawali … Petitioner
signed by
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI Vs.
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
JAGTAP Date:
2026.08.07
16:40:37
+0530
Jyoti Rajesh Gawali … Respondent
………….
Mr. Gajanan M. Savagave a/w Prashant N. Bandgar for the Petitioner
Mr. Laxman K. Kalel for the Respondent
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :
. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is assailing common order dated 06.02.2025 passed
below Exhibits 6, 42, 50 and 73 in Petition No. A-560 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is
obtained fraudulently by suppressing paragraph no.9 of the Pursis at
Exh.73. The petitioner is prepared to take action against the concerned
lawyer. The impugned order passed on the basis of concession, relying
upon Exh.73 is unsustainable. The liability imposed upon the petitioner
is arbitrary and taxing.
4. Alternatively, it is further contended that the petitioner is ready to
settle the matter.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2
56-WP-2657-2026=.doc
5. Learned counsel for the respondent informs this Court that there
were attempts of settlement previously also. Pursis at Exh.73 is the
outcome of the settlement. The petitioner and his lawyer were very well
aware of all the clauses of settlement. To avoid the liability, after though
stand is being taken that paragraph no.9 was not disclosed. It is
contended that petitioner is not paying maintenance to the respondent
and minor child.
6. The pursis at Exh.73 is not only signed by the petitioner but his
lawyer also. Except bare submission of learned counsel for the petitioner,
there is nothing on record that paragraph no.9 was not disclosed to the
petitioner and fraudulently the pursis got signed by his client.
7. Both the parties had come to the terms and jointly filed pursis at
Exh.73. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the same while passing
the impugned order.
8. There is no reason to discard the submissions of respondent that
previously attempts were there for settlement. To avoid the financial
liability, the petitioner has taken a stand which is unfounded. I do not
find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
9. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2
Checking your session…