IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16611 OF 2024 Radhika Kamal Mirani VISHAL @ Rashmi Vijay Rijhwani ...Petitioner SUBHASH vs.

PAREKAR Nisha Purshotam Mirani ...Respondent Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2025.03.27 Mrs. Sushma Singh a/w. Ms. Sayali Sawant, for the Petitioner.

19:42:29 +0530 Mr. Jagdish Choudhary i/b. M/s.Raj Legal, for the Respondent.

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE : MARCH 27, 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in Summons For Judgment No. 130 of 2023 in Summary Suit No. 125 of 2023 whereby leave to defend the suit was granted to the defendant subject to the condition of deposit of 25% of the principal amount of the suit claim. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under.

4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed before the City Civil Court.

5. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,23,000/- which she has allegedly lent to the defendant so as to facilitate her to subscribe to the share capital of Kamya Forex and Gold India Private Limited (the company) floated by her son Kamal Miran, the husband of the defendant. Interestingly, the mother in law has instituted the suit through her son who is stated to be her constituted attorney.

6. Beneath the apparent financial dispute, there is an underlying and deep rooted matrimonial and familial dispute between the parties. On account of the marital discord, the defendant is estranged from her husband Kamal. Multiple proceedings are pending between the defendant, on the one part, and her husband and the plaintiff, on the other part, including a proceeding under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is subjudice before the Court of Magistrate, Andheri.

7. Unsurprisingly, the plaint refers to the marital discord and the strained relations between the plaintiff and the defendant and the circumstances in which on account of the allegedly quarrelsome and adamant attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff had to lend the amount of Rs. 13,23,000/- to the defendant, purportedly to buy peace.

8. It is the claim of the plaintiff that in the month of June, 2018 Kamal Mirani was in the process of starting the company, the defendant tried to put hindrances therein and, eventually, agreed to allow Kamal to start the new venture only upon extracting a bargain to appoint her as a Director on the Board of Directors of the said company. Since the defendant had no money to purchase the share of the said company, the plaintiff had lent a sum of Rs. 13,23,000/- to the defendant on the condition that the said amount would be repaid without any interest. The amount was transferred through banking channels and from the account of the defendant the said amount came to be credited to the account of the said company.

9. Marital discord between the defendant and Kamal escalated resulting in multiple proceedings and, on 18^th March, 2020 the defendant addressed an email seeking to resign from the Board of Directors of the said company and demanded the refund of the sum of Rs. 13,23,000/- towards her share capital by a demand draft.

10. Asserting that there was a liquidated sum of money due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff evidenced by statement of bank accounts and that the aforesaid email dated 18^th March, 2020 constituted a clear acknowledgment of the debt, the plaintiff instituted a summary suit for recovery of the said amount. Initially, the suit was converted into a commercial suit. The defendant filed written statement on 16^th