wp5820.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5820/2011 Manoj Sahebrao Gawande and another -vs- Sau.Kanchan Manoj Gawande ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.G.Bhamburkar, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.12.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Amravati on 05/08/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner No.2 for appointing a Court Commissioner for recording the evidence of the petitioner No.2. The respondent had filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner No.1 appeared in the Family Court and filed his written statement along with a counter claim seeking a decree of nullity of marriage. The petitioner No.1 examined himself. Since the petitioner No.2 had a heart problem, she applied for appointment of a Court Commissioner for recording her evidence at her residence. It was the case of the petitioner No.2 that in the year 2009 she had suffered a heart attack and she had undergone an angioplasty at Nagpur. It was stated in the application that she was asked to take rest and was not supposed to climb the stairs. It was the case of the petitioner wp5820.11.odt 2/2 No.2 that since the Court was situated on the third floor, she could not have remained present in the Court for evidence. The Family Court, however, by the impugned order dated 05/08/2011 rejected her application and ordered that the evidence of the petitioner No.2 would be recorded on the ground floor. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the certificate as also the application, it appears that the Family Court did not commit any serious error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 is barely 50 years old. It was stated in the medical certificate that the petitioner No.1 should take adequate rest, should not exert and should do grounded physical exercise. It is not possible for this Court to gauge what is meant by grounded physical exercise. However, this Court understands that the petitioner No.2 is permitted to do physical exercise on the ground floor only. Since the Family Court permitted the recording of evidence of the petitioner No.2 on the ground floor, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order rejecting the application for examining the petitioner No.2 on commission at her residence. The order cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE