1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bikaner ('Family Court'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking exclusion of the evidence from the record and dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent has been rejected.

2. The respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 ('HM Act').

3. A response was filed by the petitioner opposing the petition filed by the respondent.

4. Whereafter the evidence was led by the parties; when the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed an application, inter alia, contending that the evidence by the respondent and the petitioner has been produced on affidavits; under the provisions of Section 15 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ('the Act') evidence cannot be taken on affidavits; as the evidence has not been taken as per provisions of the Act, the evidence produced by the respondent and her witnesses cannot be read in evidence; as the evidence produced is not legal, the same produced on affidavits be excluded from the record and prayed that the petition filed by the respondent be dismissed for lack of legal evidence.

5. A reply to the application was filed by the respondent, inter alia, contending that the examination in chief has been produced on affidavits and the witnesses have been cross-examined; the affidavits have been accepted without any objection and cross-examination has already been done; under the provisions of the Act and HM Act affidavits can be produced; the matter is fixed for final arguments and no objection has been raised earlier and it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

6. After hearing both the amicus curiae appearing for the parties, the Family Court came to the conclusion that evidence of both the parties was over on 19.07.2014 and objection, if any, should have been raised at the earliest and, in absence whereof, would be treated as waiver; procedural provisions should be used in a manner that justice is not defeated and there is no unnecessary delay; parties were given sufficient time to produce evidence and they have been examined.

7. On the legal aspect, the Family Court came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 15 of the Act provides for recording the evidence of the witnesses and the same must be such which saves time; Section 10 of the Act provides for applicability of Code of Civil Procedure and as provisions of Order 18 CPC provide for production of affidavits in examination in chief, dismissed the application.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; it was submitted that Section 15 of the Act envisage oral evidence only and though Section 10 of the Act has made provisions of CPC applicable to the suits and proceedings before the Family Court, in view of the fact that Section 20 provides that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, in view of express provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, provisions of Order 18 CPC cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Family Court. The Family Court has acted in contravention of provisions of Section 15 of the Act, therefore, the evidence recorded cannot be looked into by the Family Court and was liable to be excluded and, consequently, the petition filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed and, therefore, the Family Court committed gross error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

9. Reliance was placed on judgments of Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Lal v. Additional, Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow : 2009 (3) CCC 684 and Arvind Kumar Verma v. Smt. Suman : 1995 (2) HLR 136.

10. I have consi