Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 93 (BOM)

Chhaya Vikram Mule v. Vikram Narayan Mule

2012-01-13

R.M.SAVANT

body2012
Judgment Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 16th July, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order, the application filed by the Petitioner herein for being permitted to lead evidence came to be rejected. 3. The Petitioner herein is the original Respondent in the Hindu Marriage Petition No.142 of 2007 which has been filed by the Respondent herein seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground of the Petitioner herein being of unsound mind, a ground which finds place in clauses 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the said ground the trial Court, by an order dated 13th October, 2009 had initially sought a report from the Sassoon General Hospital Pune. However, it seems that thereafter, since the petitioner was residing with her parents in Ahmednagar, the report of the Civil Surgeon from Ahmednagar was sought. The said report ultimately came to be filed on 16th July, 2010. The Roznama of the said Hindu Marriage Petition No.142 of 2007 discloses that since the said report was awaited, the petitioner had filed applications for adjournments in so far as the recording of evidence was concerned. The numbers of such applications have been mentioned in the impugned order. On 16th July, 2010 when the said report was placed on record, the Petitioner moved an application for being permitted her to lead evidence in view of the said report which according to her was in her favour and therefore there was no impediment for her to lead evidence. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order on the ground that inspite of the earlier applications, whose numbers have been mentioned in the impugned order, the Petitioner had not taken steps to lead evidence. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in the present petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through record, in my view, to offer a fair opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 16th July, 2010 is required to be quashed and set aside. It is required to be noted that the principal ground on which the annulment of marriage sought is the alleged unsoundness of mind of the Petitioner. It is required to be noted that the principal ground on which the annulment of marriage sought is the alleged unsoundness of mind of the Petitioner. Since the report from the Civil Surgeon was awaited, the Petitioner in my view, rightly did not lead evidence and only after the said report was placed on record that the Petitioner applied for being permitted to lead her evidence. The trial Court, in my view, has erred in rejecting the said application only on the ground that inspite of the earlier applications for adjournment being granted no steps were taken by the Petitioner to lead evidence. In my view therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly quashed and set aside. The Petitioner would be entitled to adduce her evidence in the said Hindu Marriage Petition No.142 of 2007. 5. Hence the following directions: i. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 30th January, 2012. The petitioner to give list of her witnesses in the trial court on the said date. ii. The trial Court would complete the recording of evidence expeditiously and not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties. iii. The parties to cooperate in the recording of evidence. iv. The trial Court to hear and decide the said Hindu Marriage Petition latest by 31st of December, 2012. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with the parties to bear their own costs.