Kailash Arase vs Smt. Monika Arase
2022 Latest Caselaw 4857 Chatt

                                            1


                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRMP No. 1453 of 2021

        Kailash Arase, S/o. Indelal Arase, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. House No
        HA-23, Senior Hudko, Hudko Staff Colony, Hedalvarg Cement Plant,
        Narsingarh District Damoh (M.P.) Mob. 7389109562, 8462002567
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                         Versus


     1. Smt. Monika Arase, W/o. Kailash Arase, Aged About 32 Years.

     2. Kumari Anshika Arase, D/o. Kailash Arase, Aged About 9 Years,
        Represented Through Mother Smt. Monika Arase.

        Both are R/o. Of House No. 54/1354, Near Sahanai Garden, Gol Chowk,
        Rohonipuram, Tehsil/district - Raipur Chhttisgarh. Mob. 8349705775

                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

28.07.2022

Heard.

1. The present petition is against the order dated 02.12.2021 whereby the

right to further cross-examination the respondent was closed alongwith

certain documents which are placed on record, which were also not

admitted in this case.

2. Perusal of the order sheet would show that the petition under Section 125

of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/ wife and minor daughter and on

the earlier occasion by order dated 16.12.2020 when the learned Family

Court proceeded exparte, it was subject of challenge primarily by the

husband as also by the wife for interim maintenance. The said exparte

order was set aside by the order passed in Criminal Revision

No.156/2020 dated 16.12.2020, whereby the exparte order against the

husband/petitioner was set aside. In the said earlier judgment, the High

Court directed to decide the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. within a

further period of four months.

3. After such time bound direction to dispose off the case within a period of

four months, it could not be disposed off and another CRMP No.571/2021

was filed wherein the High Court again on 24.06.2021 extended the

period of decision for a period of four months. Again the said order could

not be complied and another CRMP No.1221/2021 was filed wherein four

months further time was granted for decision of the application under

Section 125 by the Family Court. Therefore in all almost 12 months time

was given from the initial direction which was given by the High Court on

16.12.2020. Thereafter, when again the evidence started on 02.12.2021,

during the cross-examination certain application were filed along with the

documents and after cross-examination for some period of time, counsel

of the petitioner sought time.

4. Perusal of the order sheet would show that when the case was taken up

in the second half i.e. after tea-break, the counsel absented from the

Court on the ground that he has fallen ill. In these facts and

circumstances, taking into fact as the time bound direction exists to

decide the case, the learned Family Court closed the right of evidence to

the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit atleast one

opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

5. Perusal of the order sheet and the documents prima facie would show

there is all deliberate attempts were made by the petitioner to protract the

trial despite the direction of the High Court. The role of the counsel who

was cross-examining also cannot be appreciated for the reason that for

some reason or other, the cross-examination of the respondent by the

petitioner was avoided on the ground that certain documents have been

filed which referred different chatting in between the parties.

6. Considering the checkered background of this case that despite three

times the dates were extended, which is almost around 12 months, the

petitioner himself refrain to comply with the order and the time bound

direction, which also shows that he has least respect in respect of the

judicial proceeding. Considering the same, I am not inclined to interfere in

the order dated 02.12.2021. However, in order to advance cause of

justice and to curtail further litigation, one last chance is given to the

petitioner to adduce his evidence on 30.07.2022 and in absence thereof

no further chance be given.

7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed off.

Certified copy, today.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge ashok