85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17092 OF 2024 1. Dr. Manali Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar 2. Akhil Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar 3. Aarya Gulshanraj Hamrapurkar (The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor) ...Petitioners VERSUS Gulshanraj Iqbalsinha Hamrapurkar ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aditya Desai, Advocate for Petitioners. Advocate S.R.Soni a/w D. Mishra for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 27.06.2023 and 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bandra, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the respondent to cross examine the petitioner- wife and has permitted the respondent to file written statement. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that on the earlier two occasions “no-cross” order was passed against the respondent, but thereafter the said order was set aside and he was permitted to cross examine the petitioner-wife. However, he did not cross examine the petitioner-wife. He wants to prolong the matter. The matter is at the SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.05 10:49:06 +0530 85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc S.S.Kilaje argument stage. The learned Judge should not have allowed the respondent to cross examine the petitioner-wife. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has permitted the respondent to file written statement, which amounts to prolonging the matter and requested to allow the petition. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent that respondent undertakes to cross examine the petitioner-wife in two sessions and he will not seek any adjournment before the Family Court. A fair opportunity should be given to the respondent to contest the petition filed by the petitioner-wife and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused documents produced on record. The petitioner-wife has filed petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent is her husband. “No-cross” order was passed against the respondent. It appears from the record that earlier also “no-cross” order was passed against the respondent. In the interest of justice, it is necessary to give opportunity to the respondent to cross examine the petitioner-wife and file written statement. In view of above, I pass following order. ORDER (i) Writ Petition is dismissed. 85-WP-17092-2024 (C) .doc S.S.Kilaje (ii) The respondent-husband shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner-wife within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (iii) The respondent shall cross examine the petitioner in two sessions and shall not seek any adjournment subject to her presence before Family Court. (iv) The respondent is permitted to file written statement. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)