Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3111 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1800 OF 2018
Smt.Rohini W/o. Gangadhar Dhokare
Aged about 54 years,
of Bombay, adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at 5/305, MHB Colony, Abhyudaya
Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai-400 033. ..Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Deepali d/o.Madhukar Saudhankar
Age 29 years
C/o. Mr.Kishor Shenoy, Surya Enclave,
Building No.1, 2nd Floor, Tulsidham,
Thane(W)-400 610. ..Defendant
Adv.Gopal Jaitly h/f Adv.Saraogi for the plaintiff
Adv. Ms.Neeta Patil for defendant
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI M.SALMAN AZMI
DATE: 07/10/2020
2
-- 1 of 4 --
2
ORAL ORDER
1. This notice of motion is tendered by the plaintiff
interalia for claiming relief that defendants be
restrained from utilising the name and surname of
the plaintiff or by showing any relation with the
plaintiff before the public at large.
2. Heard.
3. The contention of the plaintiff is that her son
contrary to her wish married with the defendant. For
the said reason, she has disowned her son. She
further contended that her son and defendant have
also filed necessary petition before the Family Court
for seeking divorce. The said proceedings is filed
only to have eye wash in the matter and they do not
intend to separate from each other. She claims to be
from respectable Maratha community and defendant
and her son are damaging her reputation in the
society by misbehaving and misrepresentations.
They cannot be permitted to defame reputation of
the plaintiff. Since she has disowned her son and
therefore her son has no right to utilize her name as
parents or her surname.
4. At the outset it is necessary to consider the
avernments in the plaint. The plaint proceeds on the
3
-- 2 of 4 --
3
ground that the defendant claim that she got married
with the son of the plaintiff. It is also the stand of
the plaintiff that as per her knowledge, no such
marriage has taken place between her son and
defendant. There is nothing in the plaint to suggest
that either the defendant or plaintiff are dafaming
the plaintiff by using her name or the family name
i.e. surname. The interim relief is in aid to the main
relief. There is no whisper about the facts narrated
in this notice of motion in the plaint. In the absence
of any relief of same nature in the suit, this relief
claimed in the notice of motion cannot be
considered. Even otherwise the facts narrated in this
notice of motion suggest that plaintiff disowned her
son and her son himself has no right to use her name
as parents. The plaintiff has not joined her son as
party to the suit as well as in this notice of motion
and therefore on this ground this notice of motion is
not maintainable. The pleadings in the notice of
motion are vague on the ground of defaming the
plaintiff by the defendant or any misrepresentation
made by the defendant using her name or the
surname. On such vague allegations, the notice of
motion is also not maintainable. In view of the
above discussion, this notice of motion needs no
4
-- 3 of 4 --
4
consideration. It is, therefore expedient to pass
following order:-
ORDER
1.N/M No.3111/2019 stands rejected.
2.Costs in the cause.
07/10/2020 M.SALMAN AZMI
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 07/10/2020
Transcribed on : 15/10/2020
Signed on : 16/10/2020
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
22/10/2020 at 2.00 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.01
Date of Pronouncement of judgment/
order
07/10/2020
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 15/10/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 22/10/2020
-- 4 of 4 --