1 / 3 7.wp7703.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7703 OF 2026 SHAISTA PARVEEN MOHAMMAD RIZWAN QURESHI @SHAISTA PARVEEN. I. QURESHI VS. MOHAMMAD RIZWAN S/O FIROZ ANWAR QURSHI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate a/w Mr. Nikhil Parwani, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 05.10.2026 Leave to amend so as to incorporate a challenge to order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Akola, in Petition No.A-77 of 2024, and more particularly, order below Exhibit 19 passed on 13.10.2025. 2. The amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 3. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking me through both the orders i.e. earlier order passed on 13.10.2025 and the subsequent order dated 28.04.2026. It is the contention of Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that directing a person i.e. Prity 2 / 3 7.wp7703.2026 like the respondent herein, to undergo a test to determine his importance or otherwise would not impugn upon the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The said observation is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Vs. Dharmpal, reported in 2003 CJ (SC) 981. However, the earlier application was rejected only since there is no availability of a such a facility in the government hospital within the territorial jurisdiction of the family Court. 5. Subsequently, an application at Exhibit 28 came to be filed by the petitioner herein after examining and making a statement that such a facility is available in the Government Medical College at Yavatmal. Even though, such a specific averment is not found in the application, the learned counsel for the petitioner in his fairness points out that such a specific averment is made in the petition regarding the availability of such a facility at the Government College at Yavatmal. 6. The only premise on which the impugned order dated 28.04.2006 is passed that the trial Court has recorded the aspect regarding the territorial jurisdiction only. The trial Court has stated that Prity 3 / 3 7.wp7703.2026 there is no such facility within the territorial jurisdiction of the said trial Court. However, the fact remains that there was no such averment regarding the availability of such facility at the Government Medical College and Hospital at Yavatmal. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a following directions : 8. The orders dated 13.10.2025 and 28.04.2026, are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The petitioner is granted liberty to move a fresh application or file an additional affidavit in support of her application at Exhibit 28, thereby stating specifically as to in which Government Medical College and Hospital, the said facility is available. 10. On making such application or additional affidavit as supra, the trial Court would hear the parties again and decide the same on its own merits, in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. 11. With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 10:35:24