1 41.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13624 OF 2025 JAYSHREE CHANDRAPRAKASH CHAVAN VERSUS CHANDRAPRAKASH KAILAS CHAVAN ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ade Ravindra B. Respondent : Party-in-person … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, dated 27.10.2025, passed below Exhibit 85. 2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent had filed Hindu Marriage Petition no. 14/2016, against the Petitioner before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, for seeking divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. The Petitioner has filed written statement and denied the contentions raised by the Respondent. The Respondent has led his evidence and after closing his evidence, he has filed evidence close pursis. The Petitioner has examined herself and other witnesses, 2 41.odt thereafter filed another Application for recalling court witness who is father of the second wife of the Respondent and also Sarpanch of the said village. 4. The Petitioner filed an Application Exhibit 47 praying for issuing witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in the said Application for examining the said witnesses. The Application at Exhibit 47 filed by the Petitioner for calling of the Court witnesses was rejected against which the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 884/2023, which was decided by this Court on 10.07.2025, setting aside the impugned order which rejected the Application of the Petitioner at Exhibit 47. 5. In view thereof, the Application has been filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit 85 with a prayer that the witnesses are refusing to accept the summons Exhibit 85 bringing it to the notice of the Court that the non-bailable warrants issued against the witnesses are being avoided by them, purposefully. Therefore, he may be permitted to issue paper publication for their service or else again summons may be issued to them and to be served through police. This Application was filed on 03.10.2025, unfortunately this has been rejected by learned Judge vide order dated 27.10.2025, by observing that in spite of trying to search the witnesses on the given address they could not be served the bailiff report 3 41.odt shows that the nearby residing people informed that, these persons have not turned on the given address, since four to five days and the witness Asha Chandraprakash Chavan, does not reside on the given address. In view of the bailiff report, the Application has been rejected. 6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the bailiff report which discloses that the wife and son of witness Rohidas Rathod, have refused to cooperate with the bailiff and informed that they do not know whereabouts of the witness and his mobile also appears to be switched off. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant could not be served on him. Thus, from the aforementioned report, it is apparent that the bailiff had tried to serve but it has been tried to be avoided by the wife and son of the witness Rohidas Rathod. Although the non-bailable warrant could not be served, the learned Judge could have allowed the alternate prayer made by the Petitioner as contemplated under Order XVI Rule 10, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the Court to pass orders which reads thus : “10.Procedure where witness fails to comply with summons : (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) In lieu of or at the time of issuing such proclamation or at any time afterwards, the court may, in its 4 41.odt discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail, for the arrest of such person any may make an Order for the attachment of his property to such amount as it thinks fit, not exceeding the amount of the costs of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under rule12 : Provided that no court of small causes shall make an Order for the attachment of immovable property. ” 7. The Writ Petition is resisted by the Respondent who appears in- person and is placing reliance on the orders passed by the trial Court as well as this Court from time to time. 8. In view of the alternate reliefs that could have been granted as prayed in the Petition, impugned order rejecting his application is set aside by allowing his application Exhibit 85. 9. With the aforementioned directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC