Bombay High Court

SHARDUL SHAMPRASAD DEVversusMANJIRI SHARDUL DEV

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court directed the District Judge, Kopargaon, to decide the pending applications within two months, thereby granting the petitioner’s limited relief.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the High Court’s intervention to decide a pending Civil M.A. No.31 of 2025 before the District Judge, Kopargaon, which involved a guardian and ward petition for child custody. The petitioner alleged that despite multiple listings and an urgency claim, the district court had rejected his interim application on 17.03.2026, stating there was no urgency. The respondent was served but did not appear. The Court held that, even in the respondent’s absence, it could grant the limited relief sought and directed the District Judge to decide the applications filed as Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 8 within two months. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct the District Judge to decide pending applications in a civil matter despite the respondent’s non‑appearance
Whether the petitioner’s claim of urgency warrants an expeditious order from the High Court

Subjects

writ petition
civil procedure
urgency
interim relief
child custody
district court
ex parte order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40493
                                                 1                   1092-WP.4082-26.odt


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                1092 WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2026
                                      SHARDUL SHAMPRASAD DEV
                                              VERSUS
                                        MANJIRI SHARDUL DEV

                                                    ...
                           Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kulkarni Sanket S.
                                                    ...

                                           CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                                           DATE : 02.09.2026
                     PER COURT :-


                     1.    The petitioner in the present writ petition has come

                     before this Court with a limited prayer to decide Civil M. A.

                     No.31 of 2025 filed by the petitioner which is pending before

                     the learned District Judge, Kopargaon. The petitioner has filed

                     Guardian and Ward Petition No.31 of 2025 seeking custody of

                     a child based on the subsequent development and changed

                     circumstances along with an interim application at Exh.5.


                     2.    It is the contention of petitioner that despite listing the

                     matter on various occasions and the urgency stated in the

                     application that was made by the petitioner that no effective

                     order has been passed on his application at Exh.5.        In fact

                     according to him, by order dated 17.03.2026, the application

                     filed by the petitioner has been rejected by holding that there is

                     no urgency in the matter.
                            2                  1092-WP.4082-26.odt




3.      Although the sole respondent has been served and is

represented by an advocate. Today, none appears for the

respondent, when the matter is called out.


4.      Considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner

to decide his application on Exh.5, in my view, even in the

absence of the learned advocate for the respondent such order

can be passed. Considering the various documents placed on

record, specifically the application filed before the District

Judge, Kopargaon, which was not entertained, either time is

granted or it has been adjourned. It would be appropriate to

direct the District Judge, Kopargaon to decide the applications

at Exh. 5 and Exh. 8, which have been pending for a long time,

as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of

two months from today.


5.      With the aforementioned directions, writ petition is

disposed of.



                                (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)

                                 ...

vmk/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…