Writ application dismissed. The single judge held that there were no reasons to conclude otherwise regarding the impugned order expunging evidence and closing the petitioner's case due to non-adherence to interim maintenance, and thus did not entertain the application.
Writ application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1073 of 2011
Jagpati Sahu … … Petitioner Versus Smt. Rukmini Devi … … Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : None : For the Respondents
3/23.07.2019 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
This writ application is directed against the order dated 16.08.2010 and 20.09.2010 passed in M.T.(S) No. 210 of 2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi by which the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 has been expunged as well as the evidence of the petitioner has been closed and the recall petition has been kept pending.
The petitioner has filed a Matrimonial Suit before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in which an application was preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and an order was passed to that effect on 05.08.2009 by which the petitioner was directed to make payment of ad-interim maintenance.
It is the case of the petitioner that two of the witnesses namely, Ramu Sahu and Pramod Sahu had appeared several times before the court below for examination, but the said exercise could not be completed on account of the refusal on the part of the concerned lawyer of the respondents. The order dated 16.08.2010 as well as the order dated 20.09.2010 seems to be based on the fact that in spite of their being an order of ad-interim payment to be made to the respondent, the same was not adhered to and in fact P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were also not produced by the petitioner which led to passing of the orders dated 16.08.2010 and 20.09.2010.
There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R.Shekhar Cp 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ application challenging the expunging of witness evidence and closure of petitioner's evidence in a matrimonial suit needs to be entertained when there is no explanation for non-explana
Jagpati Sahu
Smt. Rukmini Devi
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court