1 wp 7683.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7683 OF 2011 Ravindra Babulal Birhade .. Petitioner Versus Kalpana Ravindra Birhade .. Respondent Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Warma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The proceedings U/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are pending between the parties. During the pendency of the proceedings the present petitioner moved an application for referring the present respondent to the Civil Surgeon for medical test regarding mental disorder, etc. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Sant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Court has the power to refer any party for medical 2 wp 7683.11 examination. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Apex Court in a case of Sharda Vs. Dharmpal, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3450. The learned counsel contends that one of the ground on which the petition is filed is about the mental disorder of the respondent. The information and the evidence of expert would assist the Court in coming to the just conclusion. 3. Shri Warma, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that in a maintenance proceedings the doctor to whom the respondent was referred as per the petitioner was examined. His evidence is recorded. The copy of the said evidence is placed on record and as per Sec. 80 of the Evidence Act, said deposition is directly admissible in evidence. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is harassing the respondent and the respondent cannot be asked to under go the mental agony time and again. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the orders. It has been observed in the order that the applicant has produced on record the documents i. e. deposition of Dr. Guatam Shah, Psychiatrist of Dhule. The applicant can examine said Dr. Shah as witness in this case. The evidence of the said 3 wp 7683.11 doctor is not recorded, nor the respondent has yet stepped into witness box. In such, circumstances, there was no error committed by the Court in refusing to exercise the discretion. After the evidence of the expert i. e. Dr. Shah is recorded, if examined by the petitioner and after the evidence of the respondent is recorded, then if the court comes to the conclusion that, it is necessary to refer to an expert at that time the Court can apply its mind to the said fact. At this stage, no error is committed by the Court in rejecting the application. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11