SURENDRA RAMDAS MAHURE Vs. ANITA SURENDRA MAHURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Upon consideration of the stand taken by both the sides and hearing the rival parties, the learned Magistrate, by an order passed on 14-10-2014 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first place that the respondent was having her share in six landed properties and that earning of income therefrom was not at all denied by the respondent and in the second place that there were also documents placed on record, which were in the nature of 7/12 extracts and the admissions of the respondent which appeared in written statement filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 2009 clearly indicating that the respondent was the owner of some landed properties thereby giving rise to a possibility of earning of some income by her and even then, the learned Magistrate, by entering into the merits of the matter, found that the entries in 7/12 extracts in the name of respondent came to be deleted by way of mutation, which is not permissible in law while considering the prayer for amendment of the reply.