: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3693 OF 2009 Janhavi Suhas Palande ... Petitioner V/s. Suhas Rajaram Palande ... Respondent Mr.Mohan Pillai for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Mali for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25th JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.11.2008 by which her application for setting aside the order passed earlier refusing permission to her to cross-examine the Respondent has been rejected. The Family Court was of the view that the petitioner's conduct did not in any manner permit him to reconsider his earlier order of "no cross". 2. The review application filed by the petitioner was thus dismissed. 3. The petition before the Family Court has been preferred by the respondent herein in 2002. The petitioner herein is the respondent. The petition has been filed u/s 13(1)(1a) and 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner despite being : 2 : given several opportunities to cross examine the respondent herein failed to do so either because her advocate was absent or because she was not present. It appears that from 2002 when the matter filed, till 2006 the matter was referred to Lok Nyayalay but no settlement was possible and therefore it was returned to Court. Thereafter, the respondent was cross-examined on 8.5.2006 and the matter was adjourned from time to time. Therefore on 20.12.2006 the cross-examination was closed. On 31.1.2007, an application was made for setting aside this order. That application was rejected on 18.1.2008. A review application was then filed by the petitioner alongwith her affidavit. The review application was rejected on 10.11.2008. 4. After perusing the Roznama it is apparent that both parties appear to be taking the proceedings before the appellate Court very lightly. Time and again, the parties before the Family Court have remained absent and the matter has been adjourned. At an earlier stage also, the Family Court had passed an order for closing the cross-examination of the respondent by the petitioner. The Court showed indulgence to the Petitioner and that order was set aside. The petitioner herein was permitted to cross-examine the respondent. However, thereafter it appears that she did not avail of this opportunity for one reason or the other and therefore, the matter is pending before the Family Court for the past 7 years. 5. Although it is true that the petitioner's conduct has not been exemplary while defending the petition filed by the respondent, in the interest of justice in my opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Family Court. However, this must be on payment of costs to the petitioner. : 3 : 6. The orders dated 18.1.2008 and 10.11.2008 are set aside. The order directing "no cross" passed by the Family Court on 20.12.2006 is set aside subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent herein. In the event, the cost is paid to the respondent within two weeks from today, the Family Court will permit the petitioner herein to cross-examine the respondent. The petitioner must be ready to cross-examine the respondent by 17.7.2009. The parties will appear before the Family Court on that date and be ready to proceed with the matter. The trial Court is requested to dispose of the Petition No.A-101/1982 by 31.12.2009. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.