Bombay High Court
VISHWAM BALASAHEB JADHAVversusRAVINA VISHWAM JADHAV
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the Family Court's orders of no written statement and no cross‑examination as violative of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishwam Balasaheb Jadhav, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the Family Court's orders of "No Written Statement" and "No Cross‑examination" in concurrent maintenance and divorce proceedings. He argued that procedural defaults denied him the opportunity to present his defence, violating natural justice. The respondent‑wife contended that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity and that the orders were justified, seeking maintenance. The High Court held that while procedural discipline is essential, it must not completely foreclose a party's substantive defence and therefore set aside the Family Court's orders. The Court imposed costs of Rs.75,000 on the petitioner and directed him and his counsel to attend the pending Family Court matters without seeking adjournments. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court's orders of no written statement and no cross‑examination violate the principles of natural justice.
- Whether such procedural orders can be set aside on the ground of prejudice to the substantive defence.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner for the conduct of the proceedings.
Subjects
- maintenance
- divorce
- family court
- natural justice
- procedural fairness
- writ petition
- costs
- adjournment
Judgment
61-WP-2987-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2987 OF 2026
Vishwam Balasaheb Jadhav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Ravina Vishwam Jadhav & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh, for the Petitioner.
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.24
18:50:48 +0530
Mr.Ashok B. Tajane, for Respondent No.1.
Mr.M.G. Patil, AGP, for Respondent No.2-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for
Respondent No.1.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order of ‘No Written
Statement’ and ‘No-Cross Examination’ orders passed against the Petitioner
by the learned Family Court.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the
Respondent-wife has filed a maintenance Application against the Petitioner
and the Petitioner has filed Divorce Petition against the Respondent. Both
the proceedings are pending before the learned Family Court. Due to some
unavoidable reasons the Petitioner could not file his Written Statement
within stipulated time. Consequently, the learned Family Court passed
Page 1 of 4
61-WP-2987-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
order of No Written Statement against the Petitioner and thereafter,
passed the order of No Cross-examination, which will affect the Petitioner’s
case. The Petitioner has good case and he wants to defend the
maintenance proceedings filed by Respondent-wife and requested to allow
the Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent-wife submits that the
sufficient opportunities were granted to the Petitioner to file Written
Statement. Despite the order passed by the learned Family Court, the
Petitioner failed to file Written Statement within reasonable time.
Thereafter, the Petitioner failed to cross-examine the Respondent, resulting
the learned Family Court passed No Cross-examination order. The learned
Family Court has passed well reasoned orders. The learned counsel further
submitted that the maintenance Application was filed in the year 2024 and
the Petitioner be directed to pay the maintenance to the Respondent-wife.
The Petitioner earns Rs.2 lakhs per month. The Respondent-wife has no
source of income. Considering these facts, requested to dismiss the
Petition.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
6. The Petitioner-Husband has filed Divorce Petition against the
Respondent whereas the Respondent-wife has filed maintenance
Application against the Petitioner. Both the petitions are pending before
Page 2 of 4
61-WP-2987-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
the same learned Family Court. The right of a party to effectively present
his case is an important facet of the principles of natural justice. While
procedural discipline is necessary for expeditious disposal of proceedings,
procedural orders ought not to operate in a manner that completely
forecloses a party's opportunity to place his substantive defence before the
Court, particularly when such denial is likely to cause serious prejudice to
the adjudication of the dispute on merits. The Petitioner is, therefore,
directed to avail of this opportunity strictly and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments before the learned Family Court. The Petitioner as well as
his learned Advocate shall remain present and shall conduct the
proceedings diligently and regularly.
7. In the circumstances, imposition of substantial costs upon the
Petitioner would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the following order is
passed
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the learned Family Court, .
dated 7th October 2025 and 23rd April 2026 in Criminal
Application No.E/62 of 2024 are quashed and set aside,
subject to cost of Rs.75,000/- payable to the Respondent.
Page 3 of 4
61-WP-2987-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
(iii) The Petitioner and his advocate shall conduct the
pending matters before the Family Court regularly without
taking any adjournment.
(iv) The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(v) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.