DARSHAN NIRANJANKUMAR BRAHAMBHATT Vs. JYOTI DARSHANKUMAR BRAHAMBHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a suit before the Family Court, Ahmedabad against the present respondent for seeking divorce under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, essentially on the ground of desertion, which was numbered as Family Suit No.1837 of 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that in between during the pendency of the proceedings, some development has taken place. As a result of this, the matter was sent to the councilor and the both the parties were agreed for settlement and also agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, the parties have submitted mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereafter, the present petition is to be withdrawn. On account of this litigation, both the parties have also to inter-alia settle the terms regarding their daughter named as "Diya", who is aged about 14 years. But, somehow the matter could not be resolved in the meantime. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of this litigation, an application Exh.31 came to be submitted on 17.10.2018, seeking to grant special permission to the respondent - defendant for renewal of passport of a daughter named as "Diya" along with identity card etc. The present petitioner has submitted the reply to the said application at Exh.36. But as per the say of the petitioner, from 28.11.2018 till 5.2.2019, learned advocate appearing for the defendant did not take the task for hearing the said application Exh.31 and from time to time, same was adjourned.

(3.) Mr.Vasant S. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the order in question is not legal and valid and the Family Court has passed an order as if it is the proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act. Despite the fact that particulars regarding cause by length is not detailed out in an application, the Family Court allowed the said application. It has further been contended that proper reasons are also not assigned by the learned Judge, who passed an order and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be corrected. A further contention is raised that after the change of advocate, an application was moved and then, the order came to be passed. That circumstance also is eloquent enough to examine from this angle, as well. Hence, the learned advocate has requested the Court to set aside the impugned order which has been passed by the Family Court. No other submissions have been made.