Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1614 (MP)

Nidhi Purohit Arjaria v. Rahul Arjaria

2014-12-08

SHEEL NAGU

body2014
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 26.8.2014 passed in Case No.71-A/2012 by Family Court, Gwalior, whereby the application dated 2.7.2014 preferred by the respondent/husband seeking implementation of the earlier interlocutory order dated 24.4.2013 directing for making medical examination of the petitioner/wife has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/wife that the impugned order so far as it relates to the application dated 2.7.2014 of the respondent/husband is concerned, has been passed exclusively based upon an order of this Court passed on 16.5.2013 in Writ Petition No.3152/2013, whereby the following directions were passed while disposing of the petition in question : “Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.71-A/2012/HMA whereby upon application filed by the respondent some directions have been made to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for physical examination, present petition has been filed. 2. An effort was made by this Court to resolve the dispute amicably for which petitioner was called from Tikamgarh and respondent was called from Bhopal but the efforts were not fruitful. Keeping in view that evidence of the respondent is over and the evidence of petitioner is yet to commence, therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that petitioner shall adduce the evidence. After completion of evidence, if the respondent is of the view that still physical examination of the petitioner is necessary, then, the respondent shall move an appropriate application for enhancement of the order dated 24.4.2013 which shall be decided by the Court by passing a reasoned order. At that time respondent shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds. Till then, the order impugned herein shall remain in abeyance.” 4. From a bare reading of the abovesaid order of this Court dated 16.5.2013, it is evident that this Court granted liberty to the respondent/husband to move an appropriate application for enforcement of the earlier interlocutory order dated 24.4.2013 of the Family Court after completion of the evidence. 5. Till then, the order impugned herein shall remain in abeyance.” 4. From a bare reading of the abovesaid order of this Court dated 16.5.2013, it is evident that this Court granted liberty to the respondent/husband to move an appropriate application for enforcement of the earlier interlocutory order dated 24.4.2013 of the Family Court after completion of the evidence. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner/wife, which fact is not converted by the respondent/husband, that the evidence of the petitioner/wife, who is defendant before the Family Court, has not yet concluded. 6. From perusal of the order dated 16.5.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.3152/2013, it is evident that the said liberty for pressing the application for enforcement of the earlier interlocutory order dated 24.4.2013 regarding conduction of medical test of the petitioner/wife can be exercised only after the evidence is completed, which means that the evidence of both the parties is complete and not only of one party. 7. Since it is not disputed by either of the rival parties that the evidence of the defendant/wife/petitioner herein had not concluded at the time of passing of the impugned order, the direction contained in the interim order for medical examination of the petitioner/wife is clearly erroneous. 8. Trial Court while allowing the application dated 2.7.2014 of the respondent/husband for implementation of the earlier interlocutory order dated 24.4.2013 has overstepped its jurisdictional limits. 9. This Court while exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India disposes of this writ petition with the following directions: (1) Interlocutory order dated 26.8.2014 passed in Case No.71-A/2012 by Family Court, Gwalior, so far as it relates to the application dated 2.7.2014 of the husband, is set aside; (2) Liberty extended to the husband by the final order of this Court dated 16.5.2013 in Writ Petition No.3152/2013 can very well be exercised in terms of the same order as and when both the parties conclude their evidence and not before that stage. 10. No other contention has been raised by the petitioner. 11. In view of the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of. N. K. Gupta with Ravi Gupta for petitioner; Prashant for respondent.