Bombay High Court
WP/1559/2026 of PRAHAR VITTHALA MAHAKAL Vs DEEPALI PRAHAR MAHAKAL on 4 November 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2026 Prahar Vitthala Mahakal … Petitioner Vs. Deepali Prahar Mahakal … Respondent …………. Mr. Dattatraya Patil for the Petitioner None for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
920-1559-2026-CWP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2026 Prahar Vitthala Mahakal … Petitioner Vs. Deepali Prahar Mahakal … Respondent …………. Mr. Dattatraya Patil for the Petitioner None for the Respondent …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard.
2. The petition is directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 passed below Exh.61 in H.M.P. No. 422 of 2021 permitting the respondent – applicant to examine the daughter.
3. The parties are litigating in H.M.P. No. 422 of 2021 before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. Application Exh.61 was preferred by the respondent seeking leave to produce her daughter, aged 12 years, as a witness. The prayer is objected by the petitioner which is granted by the impugned order. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of
920-1559-2026-CWP=.doc
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is ready to give divorce by mutual consent and there is possibility of settlement. The daughter born out of wedlock, be not involved in the controversy. It is submitted that there would be cascading effects on the tender mind regarding strained matrimonial relations and considering the psychology of the child, she be not called for examination. It is further submitted that previously also such type of attempt has been made.
5. It is permissible to examine the child witnesses in a matrimonial proceedings. Calling the child as witness for oral evidence is not the rarity. The child appears to of 12 years old. I do not find perversity or patent illegality in the impugned order.
6. If the respondent is not agreeable for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, no Court can compel to go for it. It is in consonance with the principles of natural justice that parties would get adequate opportunity to lead the evidence in support of their claim. No legal defect or impediment is found in the impugned order.
7. The Writ Petition is summarily rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of