1-WP-8613-2016 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8613 OF 2016 Shri. Sanjay Shridhar Bendre ...Petitioner/s Versus Sau. Sushma Sanjay Bendre ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Swati P. Gautam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Santaram A. Tarale, Advocate for Respondent (Through VC). _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 2nd February 2012 passed below Exhibit-8 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Pune, whereby the learned Judge rejected the review application filed by the petitioner. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce and for return of the gold ornaments in the custody of the respondent. Learned Judge allowed the divorce petition but did not pass any order regarding the return of the gold ornaments in the custody of the respondent. Learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that court fees had not been paid and directed that the court fees be recovered. Thereafter, the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.09 11:12:55 +0530 1-WP-8613-2016 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam petitioner deposited the requisite court fees for return of the gold ornaments. After depositing the said amount, the petitioner filed a review application seeking a decision on the issue of return of the articles lying with the respondent. However, the learned Judge rejected the review application without any reasonable ground. Hence, requested to allow the petition. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the ornaments were given to the respondent as a gift at the time of her marriage and, therefore, cannot be claimed back. Learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. It appears from the record that the petitioner had performed a second marriage with the respondent, and it was also the respondent's second marriage. Due to disputes between them, they could not stay together. It is the petitioner's case that he had given gold ornaments belonging to his first wife to the respondent and that, after divorce, the petitioner was entitled to the return of the said gold ornaments, as the respondent was not ready to stay with the petitioner. The petitioner had paid the requisite court fees. However, the learned Judge did not consider this fact and rejected the review application, which is erroneous. Page 2 of 3 1-WP-8613-2016 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam 5. In my view, the petitioner's petition was for divorce and for return of the gold ornaments. Learned Judge had framed the issue in that regard and thereafter, directed the petitioner to pay the court fees as per the value of the gold ornaments, and the petitioner deposited the said amount. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the learned Judge to decide the issue regarding return of gold ornaments on its own merits. However, the same has not been done. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order: a) The petition is allowed. b) The impugned order dated 2nd February 2015 passed below Exhibit-8 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Pune, is quashed and set-aside. c) The matter is remanded to the Family Court, Pune, for fresh hearing on the review application. d) The learned Judge shall decide the issue regarding return of gold ornaments of the petitioner on its own merits within six months. The petition is disposed of in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)