56-WP-2657-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2657 OF 2026 Rajesh Arjun Gawali … Petitioner Vs. Jyoti Rajesh Gawali … Respondent …………. Mr. Gajanan M. Savagave a/w Prashant N. Bandgar for the Petitioner Mr. Laxman K. Kalel for the Respondent …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is assailing common order dated 06.02.2025 passed below Exhibits 6, 42, 50 and 73 in Petition No. A-560 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is obtained fraudulently by suppressing paragraph no.9 of the Pursis at Exh.73. The petitioner is prepared to take action against the concerned lawyer. The impugned order passed on the basis of concession, relying upon Exh.73 is unsustainable. The liability imposed upon the petitioner is arbitrary and taxing. 4. Alternatively, it is further contended that the petitioner is ready to settle the matter. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.08.07 16:40:37 +0530 56-WP-2657-2026=.doc 5. Learned counsel for the respondent informs this Court that there were attempts of settlement previously also. Pursis at Exh.73 is the outcome of the settlement. The petitioner and his lawyer were very well aware of all the clauses of settlement. To avoid the liability, after though stand is being taken that paragraph no.9 was not disclosed. It is contended that petitioner is not paying maintenance to the respondent and minor child. 6. The pursis at Exh.73 is not only signed by the petitioner but his lawyer also. Except bare submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing on record that paragraph no.9 was not disclosed to the petitioner and fraudulently the pursis got signed by his client. 7. Both the parties had come to the terms and jointly filed pursis at Exh.73. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the same while passing the impugned order. 8. There is no reason to discard the submissions of respondent that previously attempts were there for settlement. To avoid the financial liability, the petitioner has taken a stand which is unfounded. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 9. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2