1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.908 OF 2010 Dasharath Shripati Shinde ..Petitioner Vs. Vaishali Dasharath Shinde ..Respondent Mr. M. T. Pise for the Petitioner None for the Respondent CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATED: 9th February, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner 2. The Petitioner is the husband and the Respondent is the wife. In the year 2008, the Petitioner husband filed a petition for divorce against the Respondent before the Family Court at Pune, on various grounds. An application was made by the Respondent at Exhibit-11 praying for setting aside the order of “no Written Statement” and “no evidence”. By the impugned order dated 7th August 2009, the said Application was allowed and exparte order 2 passed against the Respondent has been set aside. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made serious grievance that the order impugned has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner on the application at Exhibit-11. Inviting my attention to the roznama of the proceedings, he submitted that the petition filed by the Petitioner was at the stage of final arguments / judgment. He submitted that the impugned order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the application at Exhibit-11. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is a substance in the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner ought to have been heard before deciding the application at Exhibit-11. The question is whether this Court can 3 exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. In a Petition for divorce filed by the Petitioner-husband, there are serious allegations made against the respondent-wife. The effect of the impugned order is that the Respondent-wife will be permitted to contest the divorce petition on merits. If this Petition is admitted for final hearing, considering large pendency of writ petitions in this Court, this Petition will remain pending for a long time. The result will be delay in disposal of the Petition for divorce filed by the Petitioner. As a substantial justice has been done, no interference can be made with the impugned order. However, it must be recorded that the family Court ought to have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the application at Exhibit-11. 5. It appears that the Petitioner has adduced evidence by filing a claim Affidavit. As a consequence of the impugned 4 order, the Trial Court will have to frame issues. The Petitioner will be entitled to file further Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, if any, in the light of the Written Statement which may be filed by the Respondent. 6. Hence I pass the following order: (i) The Petition is rejected. (ii) It will be open for the Petitioner to file further Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief for dealing with the contention raised in the written statement. (iii) Hearing of the marriage petition filed by the Petitioner is expedited and the Family Court shall conclude the hearing as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or before 31.05.2010. (A.S.OKA, J)