Mrs. Manali Mandar Bhide vs Mr. Mandar Shrikrushna Bhide
2017 Latest Caselaw 7897 Bom

Dixit
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10351 OF 2017

        Manali Mandar Bhide,                                  ]
        Age .... years, Occ. Service,                           ]
        R/at Flat No.8, 2nd Floor,                            ]
        Joshi Sankul, Mehunpura Lane,                         ]
        500/1, Shanivar Peth, Pune.                           ] .... Petitioner
                 Versus
        Mandar Shrikrushna Bhide,                             ]
        Age .... years, Occ. .....                                ]
        R/at Flat No.2, Satyadatta Apartment,                 ]
        Chimnya Ganpati Chowk,                                ]
        Sadashiv Peth, Pune.                                  ] .... Respondent


        Mr. Suraj Kudalkar for the Petitioner.
        Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Respondent.


                                 CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

                                 DATE      : 6TH OCTOBER 2017.


        ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of

learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 14 th June 2017

passed by Family Court No.3, Pune, below Exhibits "46" and "60" in P.A.

No.46 of 2014.

WP-10351-17.doc

3. By the said order, the Trial Court has rejected the application

Exhibit-60 filed by the Petitioner-wife for cross-examining the Respondent

herein, in respect of the affidavit-evidence filed by the Respondent-

husband at Exhibit-24 on 25th November 2014 and additional affidavit-

evidence (Exhibit-58) filed on 29th December 2016. The only ground on

which the Trial Court has rejected the permission to cross-examine is that,

already the affidavit-of-evidence (Exhibit-24) was filed long back and no

cross-examination was conducted.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent fairly concedes that he has no

objection for the Petitioner to conduct cross-examination as regards the

affidavit-evidence (Exhibit-24) and, hence, to that extent, this Writ Petition

needs to be allowed.

5. As regards the additional affidavit-evidence filed at Exhibit-58, in my

considered opinion, if the Trial Court has already taken it on record, then,

it follows that the Petitioner should get an opportunity to deal with that

affidavit-evidence also and to cross-examine the Respondent on that

affidavit also, as the said affidavit-evidence appears to be filed to bring on

record mostly the subsequent events and, therefore, an opportunity needs

to be given to the Petitioner to deal with that additional affidavit-evidence

by way of cross-examination or any other mode, which the Trial Court

permits.

WP-10351-17.doc

6. It is submitted that the matter is kept before the Trial Court on 6 th

November 2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, he is

ready to cross-examine the Respondent on that day.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order

passed by the Trial Court on the application (Exhibit-60) is set aside. The

Petitioner is given an opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent, both,

on his earlier affidavit-evidence (Exhibit-24) and also on the additional

affidavit-evidence (Exhibit-58), which is already taken on record.

8. Both the parties to extend co-operation to the Trial Court to decide

the matter as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of

three months from 6th November 2017.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent makes a

statement that Respondent has already cleared all the arrears of

maintenance and if anything is remaining, he will clear the same before 6 th

November 2017. The statement is accepted.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

WP-10351-17.doc