Judgment : 1. O.P.No.2703 of 2007 has been filed by the wife, Mrs. Judy Manoj @ Judia Michael Mary Gilberta before the Family Court, Chennai, seeking the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 1.1. F.C.O.P.No.845 of 2012 has been filed by the husband, Mr.Manoj David @ Mariaraj Thamboo Manoj, before the Family Court, Chennai, seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 151 CPC. 2. I.A.No.882 of 2014 was filed by the husband under Order XVIII Rule XVII read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reopen the case in F.C.O.P.No.2703 of 2007 (for divorce) for the purpose of examination of witnesses on the side of the respondent / husband and for marking documents. 2.1. Similar application was filed for the same purpose in I.A.No.1070 of 2014 against F.C.O.P.No.845 of 2012. 3. These applications were opposed by the wife by filing a common counter affidavit with the following averments:- 1. Only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the husband has come forward with these petitions. 2. This Court has given a direction to dispose of the main OP within prescribed time limit and as per the direction, the OP ought to have been disposed of last year itself. However, due to various petitions filed by the husband and his non-cooperation, the OP is still kept pending. 3. Earlier the petition filed by her to recall her and to receive documents on her side in the main OP was dismissed by the Court, only on the ground that the direction of this Court to dispose of the OP had to be complied with. Therefore, the petition filed by the husband, only with a view to drag on the proceedings should not be entertained. 4. No valid reason is stated by the husband for his non appearance regularly before the Court below. 5. This Court, by an order, dated 21.01.2013, passed in CRP (PD) No.136 of 2013 gave a specific direction to dispose of FCOP No.2703 of 2007 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of the order was received by the Court on 01.02.2013. 6. 5. This Court, by an order, dated 21.01.2013, passed in CRP (PD) No.136 of 2013 gave a specific direction to dispose of FCOP No.2703 of 2007 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of the order was received by the Court on 01.02.2013. 6. The contention of the wife is that, her applications to recall, reopen and marking of documents filed in I.A.Nos.249 of 2014, 88 of 2014, 89 of 2014 and 90 of 2014 were dismissed only on account of the fact that, there was a specific direction by this Court to dispose of the main F.C.O.P. within certain time frame; such being the case, the application to reopen and recall for the purpose of examination of the respondent has rightly been dismissed by the Court below and therefore, the dismissal order should be upheld. This contention cannot be accepted as the wife and her witnesses had already been examined by the Court and the application was only for the purpose of recalling the witnesses who were already examined. So far as the husband is concerned, he himself has not been examined nor any other witness has been examined. The application has been wrongly phrased as "recall". Therefore, the question is whether without the evidence on the part of the husband will it be possible to decide the issue on merits? 6.1. No doubt, there is a direction from this Court for disposal of the main FCOP within certain time frame and that it has to be obeyed. If the direction issued in this case had been implemented the case should have been disposed of by 01.04.2013, i.e., eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order (the date of receipt, being 01.02.2013). 6.2. Joint trial has been taken and the evidence has been recorded in FCOP No.2703 of 2007. The evidence, on the side of the petitioner / wife, has been closed on 12.03.2014, i.e., nearly one year, after the expiry of the time granted by this Court. 6.3. After granting five adjournments, i.e., on 07.03.2014, 22.03.2014, 27.03.2014, 02.04.2014 and 10.04.2014, the evidence has been closed on the sixth adjourned date i.e. 12.04.2014, and it was adjourned to 17.04.2014 for arguments. 6.3. After granting five adjournments, i.e., on 07.03.2014, 22.03.2014, 27.03.2014, 02.04.2014 and 10.04.2014, the evidence has been closed on the sixth adjourned date i.e. 12.04.2014, and it was adjourned to 17.04.2014 for arguments. At this stage, the husband has filed an application to reopen the case for the purpose of adducing evidence on his side. 6.4. This application, has been dismissed, mainly on the following grounds which are untenable. The application ought to have been allowed in view of the reasons indicated hereunder in respect of each ground of dismissal:- 1. The first ground of dismissal is that, there is a direction from this Court to dispose of the case, within a limited time frame. 1.2. True there is a direction, but the time frame fixed by the Court expired long back. However, the Court below should have considered imposing stringent conditions to consider the application, instead of dismissing it, so that even after the expiry of the time fixed Court is in a position to dispose of the case expeditiously. 2. The second ground of dismissal is that the petitioner / husband was not ready in those six hearings referred to above. Though it is stated that the husband was suffering from illness, the nature of illness is not stated in the petition. No proof is produced for the alleged sickness. 2.1. No doubt, no proof is adduced for the alleged sickness. Before this Court, documents were produced showing that there was haemorrhage on both eyes and only account of that, he was not able to attend. When the documents are not filed before the Court below, this Court was not prepared to accept the documents filed before this Court. However, in view of the subsequent undertaking to finish of the case, on a single day, the reasons stated earlier with regard to illness could have been true. 3. The third ground of dismissal is that there is no question of recalling the husband as a witness, when he himself has not been examined so far. 3.1. The Court below should have considered the request in proper perspective. When the husband himself has not been examined, the meaning conveyed is that, his side evidence must be reopened for the purpose of examining him. The trunckated way of reading the petition can only lead to injustice. 3.1. The Court below should have considered the request in proper perspective. When the husband himself has not been examined, the meaning conveyed is that, his side evidence must be reopened for the purpose of examining him. The trunckated way of reading the petition can only lead to injustice. Describing the relief as "recall", instead of using the word "call" cannot be a ground to refuse the relief sought for. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent / wife pointed out that the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the affidavit, wherein it is merely stated that the husband was sick at Bangalore and therefore, he could not appear on 10.04.2014 and he was not aware of the adjourned date, i.e., on 12.04.2014, cannot be correct. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the wife that when the husband appeared before the Court on 10.04.2014, the adjourned date, i.e., 12.04.2014, would not have escaped the knowledge of the husband, especially when he is represented by an Advocate. 7.1. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent / wife cannot be accepted, as the meaning conveyed in paragraph 2 of the affidavit is that, the adjournment would not have been intimated to the husband or the message regarding adjournment would not have reached the husband. Because of that, he would not have been aware of the next adjourned date. The conduct of the husband in taking five adjournments cannot be said to be fair. The responsibility on the part of the Family Court to implement the direction from this Court would have detered the Family Court from entertaining the reopen petition. However, the Court below could have taken efforts to ascertain the intention of the parties or would have imposed some conditions, so that, the husband would not have been in a position to take further adjournment. 8. Substantial justice would become a casualty, if the evidence of the husband is not brought on record. In cases of family dispute, it is all the more necessary that the evidence of the couple must be available on record for the purpose of appreciation of the case on merits. At any stage of the examination, the Court may, after understanding the intention of the parties, come to correct conclusion. In appropriate cases, the Court may also suggest for suitable compromise, after hearing the evidence. At any stage of the examination, the Court may, after understanding the intention of the parties, come to correct conclusion. In appropriate cases, the Court may also suggest for suitable compromise, after hearing the evidence. Such valuable possible outcomes should not have been allowed to escape the notice of the Court. 9. The provisions of the Family Court Act is the most flexible one and it has been made so only for the purpose of finding out appropriate solution to any problem. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband, gave an assurance that the husband will be the only witness to be examined, on his side, and if he is cross-examined on the same day, he will submit his arguments on the same day, without seeking any further adjournment. 10.1. This submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner / husband is placed on record for the purpose of ensuring that the husband will not take any adjournment before the Family Court. 11. In view of the undertaking given by the husband, the fair and decreetal order, 09.06.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.1070 and 882 of 2014 in O.P.No.2703 of 2007, respectively, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, are hereby set-aside. The said Interlocutory Applications are allowed. The parties shall appear before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, on 12.08.2014. On such appearance, the husband shall be examined on 12.08.2014 and he shall be cross-examined on the same day and if not possible, on the very next day, i.e., on 13.08.2014. On the completion of the cross-examination, either on 12.08.2014 or on 13.08.2014, the arguments on the side of the husband shall be submitted on the day of closure of the evidence of the husband. It is represented that the written arguments on the side of the wife has already been submitted. 12. These Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed.