IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1911 (M/S) of 2007 Vinod Kumar Katuria … Petitioner Versus Judge, Family Court, Haridwar & another … Respondents Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate for petitioner Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 30, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the husband of respondent no. 2, has sought the relief for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Case No. 20 of 2006, Smt. Reeta Katuria vs. Vinod Kumar Katuria. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 1 in the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar for granting maintenance allowance. In the case the evidence of plaintiff- respondent no. 2 was adduced and the same was completed. Thereafter the opportunity was granted to the petitioner for adducing the evidence in support of his case. The petitioner who was the defendant before the lower court was granted the opportunity to adduce the evidence thrice and on the last occasion application for adjournment was allowed on payment of cost, even then the petitioner did not adduce the evidence. Thereafter, on 6.9.2007 the Judge, Family Court rejected the adjournment application and closed the evidence of defendant/petitioner on the ground that many opportunities . were . provided to . the defendant/petitioner to adduce the evidence, but the defendant/petitioner did not care to adduce the evidence in support of his case. Therefore, no option was left with the Judge, Family Court except to close the evidence of defendant/petitioner Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2007, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition before this Court. Heard Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. It is quite clear from the perusal of order-sheet annexed along with writ petition contained as Annexure-10 that even after giving several opportunities to the petitioner/defendant no evidence was produced by him in support of his case. However, on 28.5.2007 the petitioner produced one of the witnesses DW-1 Vinod Kathuria in the evidence and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, the defendant/petitioner did not care to adduce the evidence in support of his case, hence, the court left with no option except to close the evidence of defendant/petitioner. On 13.7.2007, the court granted last opportunity to the defendant/petitioner and allowed the adjournment application on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, but even then the defendant/petitioner did not care to produce the evidence on the next date fixed i.e. 6.9.2007, hence the Judge, Family Court closed the evidence. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court. I do agree that the Judge, family Court did not have any other option except to close the evidence of defendant/petitioner. However, having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to produce his witness in support of his case. It is made clear that defendant/ petitioner shall not be granted any further adjournment in the case for producing the witness in support of his case. I direct that the counsel for the petitioner shall inform the petitioner to produce his witness before Judge, Family Court by 21st July, 2008. It is also made clear that the petitioner/defendant shall not be granted any further adjournment by the Judge, Family Court in this regard and in case, if the petitioner fails to produce his witness in support of his case before Judge, Family Court on the date fixed, the court shall be at liberty to close the evidence of defendant/petitioner and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order dated 6.9.2007 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court on 21st July, 2008 for the evidence of defendant/petitioner. The Judge, Family Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and to adopt every endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP