VIJAYSHREE YESHWANT WORLIKAR Vs. MAHARUKH MURAD OOMRIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/applicant seeking an order and direction that false, defamatory and scandalous statements and allegations made by the 1st Respondent in Petition No.7 of 1996 dated June 10, 1996 in the affidavit of the 1st Respondent No.1 in rejoinder dated July 19, 1996, in the affidavit in reply of the 1st Respondent dated July 19, 1996 in Petition No.8 of 1996 in the Written Statement of the 1st Respondent dated July 19, 1996 (in P.M. Suit No.38 of 1995) and in the affidavit in reply to the Petition No.10 of 1995, be ordered to be expunged from the said pleadings and in order to seek these directions the applicant herein has prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Court be pleased to appoint a female Gynaecologist of repute to physically examine the Petitioner/applicant and to place before this Hon'ble Court her certificate of her examination, in a cover to ascertain as to whether the Petitioner/applicant has ever had any intercourse as alleged or at all.

(2.) THE circumstances which, according to the Petitioner/applicant has caused her to file this Petition is that the 2nd Respondent Dr. Murad D. Oomrigar filed a suit in this Court being Suit No.38 of 1995 on November 21, 1995 seeking a decree of divorce to be passed in favour of the 1st Respondent-original Plaintiff dissolving the marriage of the Plaintiff to the Defendant Respondent No.1 herein; for custody of minor Vihan and for other consequential reliefs. As regards the cause of action in this Petition, the 1st Respondent has filed her written statement wherein by way of defence she has brought on record certain facts and in the Written Statement she has made certain allegations about the relationship between the 2nd Respondent and the Petitioner/applicant herein which has brought about disharmony in the marital life of the societies and 2nd Respondent. Apart from this suit, in Petition No.7 of 1996 filed in the said suit No.38 of 1995 and which is pending in this Court, the 1st Respondent herein (being Petitioner in Petition No.7 of 1996), has prayed for custody of minor Vihan and for other reliefs pertaining to the conduct of Plam Beach Preprimary School run and conducted by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 herein. In the said Petition No.7 of 1996 the present Petitioner/applicant in 2nd Respondent. Apart from this Petition, there is another petition which is filed and pending namely Petition No.8 of 1996 filed by the 2nd Respondent herein against the 1st Respondent herein seeking a relief that minor Vihan be permitted to reside with the Petitioner/2nd Respondent herein at Rajab Mahal, Churchgate, Mumbai. In the reply to the said Petition, the Respondent therein (the 1st Respondent herein) has alleged the relationship between the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent herein, which according to the 1st Respondent is detrimental to the welfare of the minor Vihan.

(3.) HOWEVER , the question arises as to whether at this stage, the Petitioner is entitled to seek the relief that scandalous allegations made against her in Written Statement in affidavit-in-reply should be struck down in the Record and Proceedings.