bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2008 Ghanshyam Mohanlal Parmar ... Petitioner v/s Urmila Solanki alias Pushpa ... Respondent Mr.Jaydev Trivedi for the petitioner. Ms.Indu Varma for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has a grievance that he has not been permitted to file an additional affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. By an order dated 7.4.2008 his application to file the same has been rejected. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in M.J.Petition No.B-42 of 2004. He claims that he was unable to engage an advocate initially and therefore he had sought free legal aid. He also claims that despite a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar, Family Court to the Member Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee, no legal aid was provided to him. However, there is no material on 2 record to indicate that such legal aid was denied to him, except the bald statement made by him in the petition. It is then contended by the petitioner that he was not able to cross-examine the respondent because he was hampered by the inadequate legal assistance. He was also directed by the Family Court to file his affidavit in lieu of his evidence which he has filed in the year 2007. Later on, after he was able to engage an advocate, the cross-examination of the respondent was reopened and he was permitted to cross-examine her. The petitioner contends that several facts have been elicited in the cross-examination of the respondent. He has not asserted these facts in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He therefore sought permission to file an additional affidavit. 3. In my opinion, the application filed by the petitioner needs to be granted. There are several facts which have been elicited in the cross-examination in respect of which the petitioner must make a positive assertion in his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Therefore, in my opinion, the rejection of the application was improper. 4. The writ petition is allowed. 3 5. The application filed for permission to file an additional affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is also allowed. The affidavit shall be filed within one week from today before the Family Court and a copy of the same shall be served on the respondent.