Allowed¶24

Mohd. Aslam Khokar v. Asma Aslam Khokar and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025WP/3529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition 3529 of 2025; Manjusha Deshpande, J.; Family Court Bandra; M.J. Petition E-74/2017; maintenance claim by wife; 'no cross' order; Exhibit-22 (15.05.2023); Exhibit-35 (15.02.2024) refusing to set aside; failure to cross-examine; one more opportunity granted; conditional on Rs.25,000/- cost deposit within four weeks; rojanama dated 26.05.2022 and 27.06.2022; list of documents; husband versus wife.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders below Exhibit-22 (15.05.2023) and Exhibit-35 (15.02.2024) in M.J. Petition No. E-74/2017 quashed and set aside, subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs.25,000/- as cost before the Family Court within four weeks; Petitioner granted one more opportunity to cross-examine Respondent No. 1, whose counsel agreed to furnish a copy of the list of documents. ¶24

Mohd. Aslam Khokar vs Asma Aslam Khokar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner-husband, against whom a 'no cross' order was passed in the Respondent-wife's maintenance petition for failure to cross-examine, should be granted a further opportunity to cross-examine her.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is now proceeding with the evidence of the Respondent-wife and failure to set aside the 'no cross' order would cause great prejudice to the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant him one more opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent, by passing a conditional order.

¶21

Key takeaways

The inconvenience caused to the Respondent can be compensated adequately by imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Family Court within a period of four weeks.ratio¶22
Both impugned orders — that below Exhibit-22 dated 15.05.2023 and that below Exhibit-35 dated 15.02.2024 — are quashed and set aside, subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs.25,000/- as cost before the Family Court within four weeks.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Manjusha Deshpande, J. — Writ Petition No. 3529 of 2025, decided 07.11.2025. The petitioner-husband challenged (i) the 'no cross' order dated 15.05.2023 passed below Exhibit-22 and (ii) the order dated 15.02.2024 passed below Exhibit-35 refusing to set it aside, both in M.J. Petition No. E-74/2017 — the Respondent-wife's maintenance claim pending before the Family Court, Bandra — contending that non-supply of the list of documents prevented him from cross-examining. Finding that failure to set aside the 'no cross' order would cause great prejudice to the petitioner and leave the wife's pleadings unchallenged, while the wife's inconvenience could be adequately compensated by costs, the Court quashed and set aside both impugned orders subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.25,000/- as cost in the Family Court within four weeks, and granted him one more opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent-wife, whose counsel agreed to furnish a copy of the list of documents. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. No statutory provision or precedent was cited.

¶1

Digitally signed byRUSHIKESH RUSHIKESH VISHNU VISHNU PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.11.10 18:42:47 +0530

¶2

34 WP.3529.2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3529 OF 2025

¶5

Mohd. Aslam Khokar

¶6

Versus Asma Aslam Khokar & Anr.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Adv. Nushrat Shah, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP, for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

Mr. Mubashit Hussain a/w Zubi Ansari i/b Hussain & Co., for Respondent No. 1.

¶12

CORAM: MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 07^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶13

P.C:

¶14

The Petitioner-husband challenges the order dated 15^th May 2023 passed below Exhibit- 22 alongwith the order dated 15^th February 2024 passed below Exhibit- 35 in M.J. Petition No. E-74/2017 pending before the Family Court at Bandra. The Petitioner who is the husband of Respondent No. 1 has failed to cross-examine the Respondent herein, consequently, the impugned order came to be passed on 15^th May 2023. Though the Petitioner has filed an application to set aside the said order, the Judge, Family Court at Bandra has refused to set aside the order, vide order dated 15^th February 2024.

¶15

According to the Petitioner, since the Petitioner was not supplied with the list of documents, he could not conduct the cross-examination. Though he has constantly requested to supply him the list of documents, his request was ignored, as a result, for want of necessary documents, he could not conduct the cross-examination.

¶16

The learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner and submitted that the Petitioner was very much in possession of the necessary documents to conduct the crossexamination. Reliance is placed on the Rojanama dated 26^th May 2022

Page 1 of 2

Rushikesh

34 WP.3529.2025.doc

and 27^th June 2022, to submit that he had filed an application with a prayer to pass ‘no cross order’ against the Petitioner, since the Petitioner has failed to cross-examine the Respondent for a considerable period.

¶21

The M.J. Petition No. E-74/2017 is pending before the Family Court at Bandra, filed by Respondent-wife for claim of maintenance from her husband. If the order of ‘no cross’ passed against the Petitioner is not set aside, great prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner and he would be unable to make out his case, and the pleadings of the Respondent would go unchallenged, which would result in causing great prejudice to the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the Petitioner deserves to be granted one chance, in the interest of justice. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the fact that, the matter is now proceeding with the evidence of the Respondent-wife, it would be appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine the Respondent, by passing a conditional order.

¶22

The inconvenience caused to the present Respondent can be compensated adequately by granting cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Family Court, within a period of four weeks.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Respondent fairly submits that he will furnish a copy of the list of documents to the Petitioner so as to enable him to conduct the cross-examination. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed below Exhibit-22 dated 15^th May 2023 and Exhibit-35 dated 15^th February 2024 are quashed and set aside subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- cost by the Petitioner before the Family Court within a period of four weeks.

¶24

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

Rushikesh

Mohd. Aslam Khokar v. Asma Aslam Khokar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Aslam Khokar v. Asma Aslam Khokar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Poonam Vinayak Salunkhe vs Vinayak Krushnarao Salunkhe

Ujwala Padmakar Jadhav vs Padmakar Balwant Jadhav

Hemal Prafulachandra Shah vs Rupal Hemal Shah

Annasaheb Alias Anilkuma Basappa Yelzare vs Sou Manisha Anilkumar Yelzare and Ors.

Akshay S/O Keshavrao Shinde vs Sonal W/O Akshay Shinde

Rohini Nilesh Mahadik vs Nilesh Yashwant Mahadik