1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10535 OF 2009 Mrs.N.Geetangalee Parag Parelkar .. Petitioner versus Mr.Parag Subhash Parelkar .. Respondent Mr.Bharat J. Khanna for the petitioner. Mr.G.D.Utangale i/by M/s.Utangale & Co for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of costs is already deposited by the petitioner with this Court. Considering the nature of controversy and especially the fact that the writ petition arises out of the proceedings regarding custody of minor children, the writ petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2 The respondent filed an application before the District Court under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1990 seeking permanent custody of minor daughters. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. There is an order passed by this Court expediting the hearing of the petition. The direction of this Court is to decide the main petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st December 2009. On 19th November 2009, the respondent filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. On that day on the 2 request made by the advocate for the petitioner, cross-examination was adjourned to 25th November 2009. On the adjourned date, the advocate for petitioner again moved an application for adjournment on the ground that the advocate had not received full instructions from the petitioner and the petitioner was sick. The said application came to be rejected and the learned trial Judge passed an order “No Cross”. On 3rd December 2009, the petitioner made an application at Exhibit 66 praying for setting aside the said order. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the application for adjournment made at Exhibit 62 a specific reason was stated. He pointed out that in the said application it was contended that the advocate had not received instructions to cross-examine the respondent. He submitted that considering the nature of the controversy, an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the petition by pointing out that the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments before the trial Court knowing fully well that the trial Court was under an obligation to dispose of the main petition on or before 31st December 2009. He pointed out the alleged conduct of the petitioner as reflected from the impugned order as well as order passed by the the trial Court below application at Exhibit 64. His submission is that the petitioner desires to delay the proceedings of the petition on one ground 3 or other and therefore no interference is called for. 5 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The dispute in the main petition is as regards custody of minor children. The welfare of the minors is the only paramount consideration for deciding such petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the advocate for petitioner will not seek any adjournment on any other unreasonable ground and will proceed with the cross-examination of the respondent. He states that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial Court for early disposal of the petition. 6 Considering the fact that the dispute relates to custody of minor children, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. It is true that some prejudice may be caused to the respondent. The respondent can be compensated by ordering the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The amount of costs has been already deposited in this Court. 7 Time granted by this Court under the earlier order to decide the main petition deserves to be extended till 31st March 2010. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 3rd December 2009 is quashed and set aside and application at Exhibit 66 is hereby allowed. 4 (b) It is made clear that petitioner will not be entitled to seek any adjournment on any unreasonable ground. The petitioner is directed to co- operate with the learned trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the petition. (c) It will be open for the respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court. (d) The trial Court will make an endeavour to decide the petition filed by the respondent has expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st March 2010. (e) Petition is disposed of in above terms. (f) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)