1. Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Both the Writ Petitions are being heard together by consent of the parties, and are being disposed of by this common judgment since the factual aspect involved in both the Writ Petitions revolve around he same set of facts.

3. Before dealing with the legal issues raised in both the petitions, it would be useful to refer to the chronology of facts and events leading to the filing of the present writ petitions, one by the husband and another by the wife.

The marriage between petitioner husband and respondent wife is solemnized on 5th July 2006. It is not in dispute that for a very short span of time, the parties led their marital life as husband and wife, and on 25th August 2006, the wife left the matrimonial home since she was serving at Pune and she continued to stay in Pune for approximately a period of one year. It is the case of the husband that the wife was residing separately on account of she serving there, whereas it the case of the wife that because of the cruelty inflicted upon her, she had chosen to reside separately and she was rather coerced to stay away from the matrimonial house. However, it is not in dispute that on 29th August 2007, the wife came to reside in the matrimonial house, but again due to differences between the parties, the wife left the matrimonial home on 4th August 2008, and since then, there is no cohabitation between the parties. In the mean time, on 5th April 2009, a female child was born out of the wedlock.

4. As far as the proceedings instituted by the parties against each other are concerned, it is relevant to note that in 2009, the husband filed proceedings for divorce on the ground of cruelty vide HMP No.218 of 2009 in the Civil Court at Nashik. In the said petition, he sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and also on the ground of desertion. According to the husband, though desertion was mentioned as a ground for divorce, the said ground was not available since the period when the wife had left the company of the husband, was less than one year. The HMP filed by the husband came to be decided against him by judgment dated 31st August 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Division Nasik.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal in the District Court which was numbered as Appeal No.243/2010. In the mean time, the wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which were rejected by the Sessions Court against which the wife has approached the High Court and the proceedings are subjudie.

5. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the Appeal filed by the husband, he filed a second petition, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and also on the ground of desertion. The said proceedings were instituted in the Family Court as Nasik and was numbered as OA No.176/2012.

The husband moved an application Exhibit 17 on 26th November 2014 in the appeal proceedings filed by him. In the said application, he sought a relief of withdrawal of the original HMP No.218 of 2009 and the District Judge permitted withdrawal of HMP with costs of Rs.2,000/. It is this order which forms the basis of proceedings involved in both the writ petitions and it is the specific contention o the wife that what was allowed to be withdrawn was only an appeal and not the HMP which came to be decided on merits. This controversy would be decided at a subsequent point of time. However, in order to continue with the chronology of events, it is to be noted that the amount of costs was immediately paid by the husband and accepted by the Advocate for the respondenton the same day. Subsequently, on 22nd January 2005, the wife moved an application before the Family Court in the proceedings of divorce filed by the husband vide OA No.176/12 claiming that the divorce petition is not tenable and it is barred by resjudicata. The learned Family Court passed an order on 22nd January 2015 and observed that HMP No.218/09 is