Order 4

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.327/DV/2018
Vanita Bhalchandra Rane …. Applicant
V/s.
Bhalchandra Keshav Rane …. Respondent
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR SPEAKING TO THE MINUTES OF
THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025.
(Passed on 06/11/2025)
On behalf of the respondent against whom the interim
order under section 23 (2) of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 was passed by this Court on 03/05/2025, this
application came to be filed by his advocate for inserting the averments
made in written notes of argument in the order passed by this Court on
12/06/2025, on the ground that inclusion of such points will insure that
the record of the proceeding is complete and accurate.
2. Per contra, the learned advocate for the applicant
submitted that the application is against the order passed by this Court
and the respondent can raise such point before the appropriate
authority. According to her, the said proceeding in which the order
dated 12/06/2025 was passed, is closed and therefore, this application
is not tenable.
3. Having perused the record, I heard the learned advocates
for both the sides.
4. In fact, the applicant had moved the application under
section 31 (1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 before this Court for initiating proceeding against the respondent
on the ground that the respondents committed breach of interim order
passed by this Court. In that application, the say of the respondent was
-- 1 of 3 --
2
called and after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides that
application was rejected on 12/06/2025.
5. It is pertinent to note here that while passing the order on
12/06/2025, this Court has specifically mentioned that it perused the
record. Thus, it is crystal clear that after taking into consideration the
documents placed on record including the written notes of argument
filed by the respondents, that order was passed on 12/06/2025.
6. Moreover, the application filed by the applicant under
section 31 (1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 is rejected. Thus, it appears that no prejudice is caused to the
respondent because the documents relied upon by him were taken into
consideration. In such circumstances, in my opinion, all the averments
which were mentioned in the written notes of argument filed by the
respondent were not required to reflect in the order dated 12/06/2025.
Thus, this Court is of humble view that after passing the order dated
12/06/2025 on the application moved by the applicant, now the
averments made in the written notes of argument cannot be added
therein.
7. It would not be out of place to mention here that this Court
is not empowered to alter or modify or review its own order. Hence,
having regard to this settled legal position, I am of the opinion that the
order dated 12/06/2025 cannot be altered by inserting the averments
made in the written notes of argument filed by the respondent.
8. The learned advocate for the respondent relied on the
citations [i.e. (2008) 2 SCC 95 and (2001) 6 SCC 3176 ] mentioned in
this application. Having gone through the citations, this Court is of
humble opinion that the facts and circumstances mention in said case
laws are different than that of the facts and circumstances of the
proceeding which was concluded on 12/06/2025. Hence, the said
-- 2 of 3 --
3
citations are not helpful for the respondent to support his claim.
9. The last but not least point to mention here is that the
proceeding in which the order was passed on 12/06/2025 is closed
now. In other words, the said proceeding is not pending before this
Court at this juncture. However, this application came to be moved. It
is pertinent to note here that this application is signed by the advocate
for the respondent. Thus , it appears that the present application on
hand is neither signed by the respondent not it is supported by his
affidavit. Hence, this application is not tenable.
10. The sum and substance of the discussion noted above is
that the present application on hand is devoid of merit and it is not
tenable in the eye of law. Resultantly, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
The application stands rejected.
Sd/-
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Date : 06.11.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --