1. This petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution by the aggrieved husband challenging the order of the Family Court closing his further cross examination of wife in H.M.P. No.69 of 2008 pending before the Family Court, Rajkot.
2. This Court heard at length learned advocates for the parties as also examined the protracted cross examination and considered the time taken by the present petitioner in cross examining the respondent-wife, who has preferred the petition for divorce before the Family Court.
3. Without further dilating various issues raised by both the parties, it would suffice to hold that there does not appear to be any error much less illegality in closing the stage of further cross examination. The petitioner had chosen to cross examine her in camera trial over and above the cross examination by his advocate, the Court had permitted such a request possibly since he is a practicing Advocate. It appears that the Court on striking the balance has chosen not to allow further liberty to the petitioner herein and rejected the request for grant of adjournment for further cross examination after an exhaustive exercise undertaken for many months.
4. No error nor any perversity could be pointed out in closing such a right. There appears to be a sheer of misuse of right of preparing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after the Court permitted such long innings to the petitioner. It is also being pointed out during the course of submissions that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner herein has also filed his examination-in-chief and sought time in the divorce proceedings on account of pendency of this petition wherein, of course, no interim relief is granted in his favour. In wake of these details, the Family Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously as possible.
5. Resultantly, Writ petition in the above terms stands disposed of. The observations made herein shall not prejudice the case on merit of either side.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J) bina* Top