The court emphasized the importance of utilizing the opportunities already granted and directed that arguments shall be heard on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Family Court on the next date of hearing.

JUDGMENT :

Mini Pushkarna, J.

CM APPL. 20839/2023 (Application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing certified copies/true typed/legible copies of the orders, documents, notices, applications etc)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CM (M) 671/2023 & CM APPL. 20838/2023 (Application under Section 151 CPC seeking Ad-interim exparte stay on the HMA No. 171/2018 titled “Shilpi Srivastav v. Raj Kumar Hingorani” pending before the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi during the pendency of the captioned petition)

3. The present is a petition challenging the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in HMA No. 171/2018, by which the opportunity of the petitioner-husband to lead evidence has been closed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner husband submits that the petitioner is ready to settle the matter and that one opportunity may be granted in that regard.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife submits that the matter has already been heard finally by the learned Family Court on 20.04.2023 and the matter has been reserved for judgment.

6. The respondent-wife has filed petition, HMA No. 171/2018 under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against petitioner-husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that earlier efforts were made to settle the matter, but the petitioner-husband backed out despite finalisation of the terms of settlement. Attention of this Court is drawn to the order dated 21.09.2022, wherein it is clearly recorded that the petitioner herein after agreeing to all the terms of settlement, refused to settle the matter.

8. This Court has also perused the various order-sheets of the case pending between the parties in the Family Court. By order dated 24.09.2022, right of the petitioner-husband to cross-examine respondent-wife had been closed. Thus, the matter was put up for evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein on 24.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had been taking dates as recorded in the orders dated 09.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 of the Family Court.

9. Subsequently again, when the matter was taken up on 23.01.2023, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner herein. Thus, the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 came to be passed by the learned Family Court, wherein the opportunity to lead evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein was closed.

10. It is seen that the opportunity of the petitioner-husband to cross-examine respondent-wife was closed way back on 24.09.2022. The petitioner-husband did not challenge the said order and made no efforts to seek opportunity to cross-examine the respondent-wife, who is the petitioner in the family Court. Similarly, opportunity of the husband to lead evidence was closed way back on 23.01.2023. The petitioner did not challenge the said order also and it is only now when arguments have been heard by the Family Court and judgment has been reserved, that the husband has approached this Court now by way of the present petition.

11. This Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner kept changing his counsels again and again. An adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner herein before the learned Family Court on 22.02.2023. Subsequently on 27.03.2023, a new counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner herein before the learned Family Court and sought adjournment. Thereafter again when the matter was listed on 20.04.2023, another new counsel put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner herein and again sought adjournment.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, in order to contend that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 23.01.2