Sarita Ram Shinde Vs Ram Dnyandeo Patil Shinde — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sarita Ram Shinde Vs Ram Dnyandeo Patil Shinde — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (B): impugned orders dated 10.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 quashed and set aside; petitioner permitted to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses and record her own evidence, with cross-examination of the respondent's witness on the next date, her examination and her witness's cross-examination within seven days thereafter, and the Family Court directed to endeavour to conclude the proceeding within twelve weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 10.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court at Aurangabad below Exhibits 43 and 44 — rejecting the petitioner's applications to recall the 'no cross order', permit cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses and lead her own evidence, and closing her evidence — deserve to be quashed so as to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend the divorce petition.

Court's answer

The orders passing the 'no cross order', rejecting the application to set it aside and closing the petitioner's evidence may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner's conduct cannot be justified, she must get a reasonable opportunity to defend the divorce petition.

Key takeaways

In that view of the matter, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶24
The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent and also to record her own evidence along with her witness.ratio¶26
The respondent shall keep his witness present on the next date of hearing before the Family Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J. — In a husband's dissolution-of-marriage petition (Petition No.A-420 of 2021, Family Court, Aurangabad), a 'no cross order' had been passed on 19.08.2024 when the wife-petitioner's advocate was absent; her applications below Exhibits 43 and 44 to recall that order, cross-examine the husband's witnesses and lead her own evidence were rejected on 10.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 and her evidence was closed. The Court held that although her conduct could not be justified, closure of her evidence would cause serious prejudice and she must get a reasonable opportunity to defend the divorce petition. The impugned orders were quashed; the writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (B); the petitioner may cross-examine the respondent's witnesses and record her evidence, with cross-examination on the next date and completion of her side's cross-examination within seven days; the Family Court was directed to endeavour to conclude the proceeding within twelve weeks.

19-wp-2286-2025.odt

2025:BHC-AUG:19916

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2286 OF 2025

Sarita Ram Shinde VERSUS

Ram Dnyandeo Patil Shinde

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Pooja V. Langhe Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Jain Vishwajeet Ramesh

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 25, 2025

PER COURT :-

Heard learned advocates for respective parties.

Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 10.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed below Exhibit 43 and 44 by learned Family Court at Aurangabad in Petition No.A-420 of 2021.

The petitioner is original respondent in Petition No.A-420 of 2021 instituted by respondent/husband seeking decree of dissolution of marriage. Presently, the proceeding is at the stage of evidence. It appears that on 19.08.2024, the witness of respondent/husband recorded his evidence. However, petitioner’s advocate was absent. Hence, “no cross order” was passed. On 24.09.2024, petitioner’s advocate filed an application below Exhibit 43 seeking to recall “no cross order” dated 19.08.2024 and permit cross-examination. On 10.01.2025, noting absence of petitioner and her advocate, learned Judge Family Court rejected aforesaid application and evidence of petitioner is closed. Thereafter, matter

19-wp-2286-2025.odt

(2)

was posted for final argument. At this stage, petitioner filed an application below Exhibit 44 reiterating the prayers to permit crossexamination of witness of respondent and also permit her to lead evidence. Both these applications are rejected vide impugned order dated 30.01.2025.

Learned advocate appearing for petitioner submits that absence of petitioner or her advocate on the given date was unintentional. The petitioner was unwell and her advocate was busy before some other Court and therefore, absence of petitioner or her advocate cannot be said to be deliberate.

Learned advocate appearing for respondent would invite attention of this Court to roznama and submits that the petitioner is receiving interim maintenance, hence she is protracting proceeding by adopting various tactics. He would therefore support impugned order.

Having considered submissions advanced and looking to nature of litigation, it can be observed that petitioner is facing proceeding of dissolution of marriage instituted by husband. The respondent/husband has examined himself and one more witness. However, the learned Family Court passed “no cross order”. Thereafter, application for setting aside no cross order is also rejected and evidence of petitioner is closed. The aforesaid orders may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Although her conduct cannot be

19-wp-2286-2025.odt

(3)

justified, fact remains that petitioner must get reasonable opportunity to defend divorce petition.

In that view of matter, impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine witnesses of respondent and also record her evidence along with witness.

The respondent shall keep his witness present on the next date of hearing before Family Court.

The petitioner shall complete cross-examination of respondent’s witness on the same date. Thereafter, the petitioner may

examine herself and her witness before Family Court, their crossexamination shall be completed within a period of seven days thereafter.

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

The learned Family Court to endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//