JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the Party-in-Person Ms. Prapti Apurva Dave and learned Advocate Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt on behalf of the respondent.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

3. By way of this application, the Party-in-Person seeks to challenge an order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar dated 03.09.2022 below Exhibit 177 in Family Suit No. 166 of 2013 whereby the learned Family Court had rejected the application preferred by the Party-in-Person-wife before the Family Court to appoint a medical expert for psychological evaluation of the respondent-original applicant before the Family Court.

4. It is the submission of the Party-in-Person that during the course of examination of two witnesses i.e. one Dr. B. C. Patel and Dr. A. A. Kureshi, who had treated the applicant before the learned Family Court- respondent herein, on two separate occasions, i.e. Dr. B. C. Patel having examined the respondent-husband in connection with a criminal case lodged against husband under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and more particularly, in case of Dr. A. A. Kureshi who had treated the respondent-husband in a Medico-legal case where the respondent-husband had inflicted injuries on his self by cutting both his wrists, that the petitioner-wife, had come to know about the possibility of respondent-husband suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) for which the husband had been taking Psychiatric treatment.

4.1. The Party-in-Person would submit that since the said aspect came to the knowledge of the Party-in-Person, applicant-wife herein, during course of the cross examination of the above witnesses, that the applicant-wife had given such an application much after the issues were framed and whereas, it is on account of such fact not being known to the applicant-wife that even in her written statement before the learned Family Court that the applicant had not raised any such contention. The Party-inperson would submit that since such an aspect had come to the notice of the Party-in-Person during course of the proceeding, the Party-in-Person had immediately preferred an application invoking the aid of Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, requesting the Court to take assistance of experts for evaluating the psychological condition of the respondent-husband. The Party-in-Person would submit that since as such there had been no delay on part of the present Party-in-Person and though the case before the learned Family Court had reached at an advanced stage, yet, neither the aspect of delay nor the aspect of advanced stage, should have disadvantaged the Party-in-Person from seeking such a relief and whereas, according to the Party-in-Person the learned Family Court had committed an error in rejecting the said application.

4.2. The Party-in-Person would further draw the attention of this Court to provisions of Section 12 and 14 of the Family Courts Act to submit that it is always open for the Court to engage services of Medical experts and whereas, according to Section 14, strict Rules under the Indian Evidence Act may not be applicable to procedure which may be adopted by the learned Family Court. Having regard to such submissions, the Party-in- Person would request this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Family Court and further direct the learned Family Court to call for assistance of medical experts to evaluate the psychological condition of the respondent-husband.

4.3. The Party-in-Person relies upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sharda Vs. Dharmpal reported in 2003 4 (SCC) page 493 in support of her submissions.

5. This application is vehemently objected to by the learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the respondent-husband. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that the present application is one more attempt by the applicant-wife to protract the legal proceedings. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would