1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4047 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Hemant Surve, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns the order directing the Chairman to present himself as a witness. 3. The matrimonial dispute is pending between the parties. The present Respondent filed an application Exh.33 calling the witness i.e.the Chairman to remain present along with the record. So also the Head-mistress. It seems that there are two different certificates on record regarding the salary of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed below Exh.33, the representative of the Chairman appeared as witness. There were some anomalies in the 2 deposition and again an application was given that the Chairman be called to depose as the signatures on the certificate were not properly identified. The said application is allowed. 4. Earlier an order was passed on 3l.1.2011, issuing witness summons to the Chairman and the Head-mistress. The Chairman instead of presenting himself to adduce the evidence, deputed his representative. It appears that no leave was sought by the Chairman while deputing the representative. In fact, the witness summons was issued to the Chairman, the Chairman should have respected the said summons or at least sought exemption. Mr.Surve, learned counsel states that the petitioner has challenged both the orders i.e. order passed below Exh.33 and Exh.46. In fact, the petitioner had submitted to the order at Exh.33 inasmuch as for almost 8 months, the said order was not challenged. To direct a witness to be produced is the discretion of the Court. The Court has recorded that the representative who had appeared for the Chairman could not give answer to the query put by the Respondent i.e. the petitioner herein and he has not brought the concerned record. In light of that the Family Court has allowed the application Exh.46. 5. I do not see any error committed by the Family Court while passing the impugned order, more particularly, when the order at Exh.33 was not assailed for such a long time. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 3 However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Taking into account the rigour of dispute, the Family Court shall expeditiously dispose of the same, preferably within a period of six (6) months. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.03.10.2011. asp/office/wp4047.11 4