4-WP-11251-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 of 2025 Mitesh Rupsinh Tawade ...Petitioner/s Versus Gouri Mitesh Tawade and anr. ...Respondent/s ________________________________________________________________ Ms. Pooja Gadekar, Advocate for Petitioner (through VC). Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 19th May 2025 passed by the Family Court, Pune, below Exhibit 67, whereby the learned Family Judge rejected the application of the petitioner for filing an additional affidavit of evidence. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court, by order dated 26th March 2025, granted leave to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking leave to file an additional affidavit of evidence on record. Accordingly, the application was filed before the learned Family Judge, Pune, but the learned Family Judge rejected the said application on the ground that there is no pleading regarding the additional affidavit of evidence. As the additional affidavit of evidence was filed as per the direction of this Court, learned Judge should have allowed it, hence, requested to allow the petition. SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.08.20 14:03:11 +0530 4-WP-11251-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it. The evidence of the petitioner's cross-examination has already started, and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. The additional affidavit of evidence was filed as per the order of this Court. The learned Judge should have considered this fact and allowed the said application. 5. The additional affidavit of evidence is in respect of documents which are already on record. Considering this fact, I pass following order: O R D E R 1. The impugned order dated 19th May 2025 passed by the Family Court, Pune, below Exhibit-67 is quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner is permitted to file the additional affidavit of evidence on record. The petition is disposed of in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)