IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1944 of 2014 Between:
K.Swetha And K.Naveen Kumar … Petitioner … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1944 of 2014 ORDER :
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2014 passed in I.A. No.164 of 2014 and O.P. No.643 of 2007 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam.
The revision petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband.
O.P. No.643 of 2007 is filed by the husband seeking to declare the marriage between the parties as null and void. Trial is going on and the matter is coming up for respondent’s evidence.
I.A. No.164 of 2014 in O.P. No.643 of 2007 was filed by the wife under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC praying to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination and the said petition was dismissed vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, wife filed the present revision petition.
This Court on 11.07.2014, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay. Seeking to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court, respondent filed vacate petition, CRP. MP. No.3564 of 2014.
The learned counsel appearing for the vacate petitioner/ respondent, husband, submits that he was examined as P.W.1 and the learned counsel appearing on the other side had also cross examined elaborately on two occasions on 18.02.2009 and 24.03.2009. Subsequently, P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined on his behalf. Thereafter, the wife filed I.A. No.615 of 2010 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recalling P.W.1 for further cross examination, which was allowed by the Court below. Challenging the said order dated 16.08.2010, husband filed CRP. No.5885 of 2010 wherein this Court vide its order dated 01.04.2011 allowed the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order therein and remitted the matter to the Court below for consideration of I.A. No.615 of 2010. Thereafter, once again, I.A. No.615 of 2010 was allowed by the Court below vide its order dated 30.01.2013 and against the said order, husband filed CRP. No.1144 of 2013 that was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 12.07.2013 on the ground that the wife did not mention the purpose of recalling P.W.1 but only stated that the witness needs to be cross examined on certain aspects. Thereafter, once again, the wife filed I.A. No.164 of 2014 for recalling P.W.1, which was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order in the present revision petition observing that the wife wantonly filed several petitions seeking to recall the P.W.1 even elaborately cross examined by her counsel.
He further submitted that the wife is habituated to file one petition after one just to harass the husband and to drag on the matter. Therefore, the Court below rightly passed the impugned order and no interference of this Court is required.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/wife submitted that prior to examination of P.W.1, her grand father was expired and her father fell seriously ill as such, she was under shock and not in a position to instruct her counsel to cross examine on certain aspects and in view of evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 it has become necessary for her to further cross examine P.W.1.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the husband drew the attention of this Court to the observation made by this Court in the order dated 12.07.2013 passed in CRP. No.1144 of 2013 to the effect that if the wife is able to mention any new development that has been taken place subsequent to the conclusion of evidence of P.W.1, the same shall be considered by the trial Court. Since, the wife failed to bring any new development taken place subsequent to the conclusion of evidence of P.W.1 to the notice of the Court below, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition filed by her observing as stated hereinabove.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, wife, and the learned counsel for the respondent, husband, and perused the material on record.
Admittedly, the wife earlier also filed petitions seeking to recall P.W.1 for further his cross examination and failed to success. Eventually, she filed I.A. No.164 of 2014 that was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it is categorically observed that the wife had taken several adjournments and opportunities for cross examination of P.W.1 on 28.02.2009, 24.03.2009 and 16.10.2010 even three occasions the P.W.1 was cross examined by the wife elaborately.
Therefore, it seems that the wife wantonly filed several petitions to recall the P.W.1 even elaborately cross examined by her counsel and dragging on the matter to harass P.W.1, which is not entertainable. Further, the wife failed to show new developments, if any, taken place subsequent to the conclusion of evidence of P.W.1 so as to consider the same, as observed by this Court in the revision petition that was filed by the husband on earlier occasion.
In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below did not commit any error in passing the impugned order and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 13.12.2014 LSK