THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4018 OF 2009 23rd September 2009 Between: T.Swetha Rani, W/o.T.Suresh Babu, 26 years, D.No.11/693, Near Balaji Temple, H.S. Street, Kadapa. …PETITIONER AND T.suresh Babu, S/o.Satyanarayana, 32 years, Software Engineer, D.No.15/77, P.B. Street, Kadapa. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4018 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The latter filed D.O.P.No.95 of 2008 in the Family Court, Kadapa, against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to annul the marriage. He pleaded that the petitioner is suffering from Schizoformia and serious illness. The petitioner opposed the O.P. by filing counter. The trial of the O.P. commenced. The petitioner filed I.A.No.138 of 2009 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to examine a Professor in Psychiatry. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 24.06.2009. Heard Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner is suffering from Schizoformia. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent examined a witness to speak about that fact. But the petitioner wanted to examine a doctor to speak about her health condition. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. with some-what peculiar reasoning. The first ground mentioned by it is that the evidence in this regard is already adduced by the respondent. On the face of it, this reasoning is untenable. The Family Court cannot shut the evidence of the petitioner by making the evidence adduced by the respondent. The second reason mentioned by the trial Court is that the proposed witness did not treat the petitioner and that his evidence is not relevant. Here again, the reason is perverse to say the least. It is not necessary that the witness must have treated the petitioner. One shocking reason given by the trial Court is that during the counseling, the respondent refused to receive the petitioner, even if she is all right. It is just unthinkable as to how this constitutes a basis for rejecting the application. This Court is rather surprised and shocked to notice the attitude exhibited by the trial Court. It is hoped that necessary amends would be caused in this regard and the spirit of the Family Court is restored. The learned Judge lost sight of the fact that what is at stake is the matrimony of the petitioner. Further, if the allegation is not disproved, she has to bear the blot for the rest of her life. As a matter of fact, if the respondent refused to receive the petitioner, even if she is all right, it is a case to abhor the respondent but not to penalize the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Learned Family Judge shall permit the petitioner to examine not only the proposed witness, but also any one whom she chooses to disprove the allegation against her. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 23rd September 2009 RRB