SOU MANGALA SURESH KANASE Vs. SURESH DADU KANASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.10.1991 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1990 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the maintenance application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BEFORE I deal with the merits of the case, a very disturbing aspect of this case needs to be noted. By my order dated 14.1.2000, I had called for record and proceedings because for proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel it was necessary to peruse certain exhibits. The farad indicates that for compliance of my direction message was communicated to the office of the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. On 20.1.2000 merely the pleadings of the parties were received. The exhibits filed in the Court were not received. The Registrar was, therefore, directed by me to make further enquiry. The enquiries made by the Registrar indicate that though the writ of this Court was received By the Court of District and Sessions Judge Kolhapur, that Court did not give intimation of the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Ichalkaranji. The said Court destroyed files C and D of the proceedings which contained the exhibits.

(3.) THIS indeed is a shocking state of affairs. It is elementary that once the High Court is seized of the matter, the record in connection with the same should be preserved for the possibility of the High Court needing it for proper adjudication of the issues involved cannot be ruled out. I may note that considerable difficulty was created in the way of deciding this matter because the exhibits were destroyed. It is only because of the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that I could gather copies of the exhibits and proceed with the matter. If what has happened in this case is repeated, it is quite possible that in some case interest of justice will suffer and irreparable harm will be caused to a litigant. It is necessary, therefore, for the Registrar to issue appropriate directions to subordinate Courts in this behalf. Since this writ petition pertains to maintenance and was filed as far back as in the year 1992 despite the difficulties created by destruction of record, I decided to proceed with the case with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides and with their assistance. At appropriate stage I will indicate the directions which the Registrar should issue to the subordinate Courts in this connection,