SANGEETA SHRIKANT PINGALE Vs. SHRIKANT SHANKAR PINGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No notice is required to be issued to the Respondents to dispose of this petition as the Respondent has not appeared before the Trial Court when the impugned order was passed.

(2.) This petition is directed against an order dated 5 April 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.5 at Mumbai. By the impugned order an application filed on behalf of the Petitioner at 'Exhibit 10' for return of original power of attorney which was annexed to the petition, being a power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of her brother Mr. Sandeep Khedekar, was prayed to be returned, by keeping on record its true copy. The following was the prayer in the application:

(3.) The above application in question was filed on 30 Jan., 2016. The prayer in the application was for simpliciter return of the document of power of attorney. In the normal circumstances the power of attorney was required at the time of filing of the proceedings and as and when required by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. The reason for seeking return of the said original power of attorney, as stated by the Petitioner in the application, was that, this power of attorney was required for some other purposes like while dealing with the Government Officers etc. These reasons are specifically set out in paragraph 4 of the application. The duty of the Court was simpliciter to consider this application and applying the provisions of law, pass appropriate orders. However, the learned Judge by the impugned order has rejected the said application and in doing so, in my opinion, has made absolutely unwarranted observations against the Advocate representing the Petitioner. At the outset, it may be observed that considering the nature of the application, these observations as made by the learned Judge were most uncalled l or and also are not borne out by the record as also they are disturbing.