Honble KOKJE, J. — This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Order dated July 10,1995 directing ex-parte proceedings against the appellant the original non petitioner (hereinafter referred to as wife), in a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties.

(2). A brief history of the proceedings culminating in passing of the impugned order would be necessary for appreciating the controversy.

(3). The original application for decree of divorce was filed by the respondent herein (herein after referred to as husband), on October 12, 1993. Several opportunities were given for filing reply to the main petition but the wife did not file reply and on September 28, 1994, her right to file a reply was closed and the case was fixed for evidence on the original application. On November 7, 1994, the reply filed by the wife to the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was taken on record as per the directions of this Court. In the meanwhile, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code), was moved by the wife for stay of the proceedings on the ground of pendency of earlier proceeding filed by her claiming maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. On February 13, 1995, this application under Section 10 of the Code was rejected and the case was posted for March 13, 1995 for evidence of the husband.

(4). Ultimately, on April 24, 1995 statements of the husband and his witnesses Chitranjan Bhansali and Dr. Gula Rabani were recorded but the cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred and the case was directed to be put up on May 17, 1995. On May 17, 1995, the wife remained absent and moved an application for adjournment on the ground of her illness. The Court granted the adjournment despite strong objection on the part of the husband and adjourned the case to May 27, 1995 for cross-examination of the witnesses already examined as also for recording of the statements of the remaining witnesses of the husband. On that day also an application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the wife on the ground of her illness. The prayer was strongly objected on behalf of the husband but ultimately the Court granted the prayer in the interest of justice and adjourned the case to July 3, 1995. On July 3, 1995, a prayer for consolidation of the case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the case under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 was allowed and issues were amended in the light of the consolidation of the two proceedings. As the case was fixed for the evidence of the husband including his cross-examination, the court wanted to proceed to take evidence but the wife moved an application that looking to the complications in the case, she may be permitted to be represented through a legal practitioner. The prayer was objected to on behalf of the husband and it was rejected. The wife then expressed her inability to" cross-examine the husband on that day and prayed for two days time which was granted by the Court and the case was fixed for July 5, 1995 for evidence of the husband.

(5). On July 5, 1995, the wife presented an application under O.XIV R.5 of the Code for amendment of the issues in the light of the consolidation of the proceedings. She also submitted an application under S. 151 of the Code for adjournment of the case for three weeks to enable her to challenge the Order of the Court rejecting her prayer for being allowed to be represented through a legal practitioner. The prayers were vehemently opposed on behalf of the husband and it was urged that the wife was trying to protract the proceedings in order to harass the husband. The Court rejected the application for amendment of the issues as the issues had already been recast in the light of the consolidation of the proceedings. The Court also rejected the application for adjou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document