IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION M.NO.180 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.25 OF 2008 Mrs.Susy Savio ... Applicant Vs. Mr.Savio Alexander and anr. .... Respondent Mr.T.S.Joseph, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Sasi Nair, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram : P.B. MAJMUDAR & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Date : 24TH October, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The respondent herein instituted Family Court proceedings for getting decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The trial court allowed the said application in favour of the respondent against which the present respondent has filed appeal and it is pending for final hearing. In the meanwhile, the applicant-wife has preferred this Civil Application for the following prayers: (a) Appoint Justice John Mathew (retd), President, People's Council for Social Justice (PCSJ), Appu Soudham, Ravipuram Road, Valamjambalam, Kochi – 682013, Kerala under S.75(a),(b) r.w. O.XXVI R.4(1)(a), R4 (2) & (3), to enquire into respondent No.1's bigamy under terms and provisions cited hereinabove, and report to this Hon'ble Court within a pre-fixed time-frame, and b. Direct that a Commissioner appointed in terms of prayer clause (a) above, the witnesses examined, and the evidence collected, will benefit powers, rights and admissibility respectively, under O.XXVI R8 (a) & (b), R.W. R.9 of The CPC, R.W. S.10(3) & S.14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984; c. May further direct that in an enquiry so ordered, subject to Commissioner's duty to face examination of himself under O.26 R.10(2)&(3) CPC, evidence of the witnesses examined by C`ommissioner shall be read in evidence under O.26 R.8 (a) & (b) CPC r/w SS.10(3) & 14 of Family Courts Act without their personal appearance in Court; d. Award cost of this petition. 2. It is required to be noted that the respondent has filed original petition on the aforesaid two grounds. Even the respondent wife has not filed any separate civil application for bringing subsequent events on record. In our view, such type of prayers cannot be granted. This court cannot grant such prayers on the alleged grounds of bigamy which was orally canvassed before us without filing any Civil Application on record. The Civil Application is misconceived. Hence, the Civil Application is rejected. (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)