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 _________________________________________________________________ Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh, for the Petitioner. 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 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.24 18:50:48 +0530 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 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. 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.)