(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3258 of 2009 Ajay s/o. Avinashrao Shelke, Age : 34 years, Occupation : at present Nil, R/o. Estern Colony, .. Petitioner Nigadhi Pradhikaran, (Original Pune. respondent) versus Sou. Shradha w/o. Ajay Shelke, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Shashikant Pralhadrao Ponde, Deepnagar, 15/3, at present Plot No. 10, C-2, Saptashrungi .. Respondent Housing Society, N-7, CIDCO, (Original Aurangabad. petitioner) .................. Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.B. Vikhe, Advocate, holding for Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate, for the respondent. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE 2009. (2) COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st April 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, below Exhibit 24 in Petition No. C-10/2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for taking the certificate from his employer on record or to permit the examination of the employer. 3. The respondent wife has filed an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, for permanent alimony. 4. It is the contention of the respondent wife, that the petitioner is working in HSBC Software Development India Private Limited, Pune, as Associate Project Manager. After the parties had led their evidence and the matter was closed for arguments, an application came to be filed by the petitioner for production of additional evidence. Vide the said application, the petitioner wanted to produce on record the resignation given by him which was accepted by his employer. The said application is rejected by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, on the ground that the said application was filed at a belated stage. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5. Mr. P.F. Patni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Judge of the Family Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application only on the ground that it was filed at a belated (3) stage. 6. Mr. P.B. Vikhe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submits that the Family Court has rightly rejected the application since it was filed at a belated stage. 7. From the perusal of the record, it would be clear that though the evidence was closed on 17th January 2009, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by his employer on 4th March 2009. It is thus clear that the petitioner could not have been in a position to produce the said document prior to the closure of the evidence. It is settled law, that the additional evidence, if found necessary, can be permitted at any stage including at appellate stage. It is clear that even with exercise of due diligence, the petitioner could not have been in a position to produce the said document prior to the closure of the evidence. 8. I find, that instead of preventing the petitioner from producing relevant document on technical ground, it would be in the interest of justice that the lis between the parties is decided on its own merits. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". However, that shall be subject to the costs which are quantified at Rs. 7,500/- [Rupees seven thousand five hundred]. The costs be deposited by the petitioner within a period of eight days from today in the Family Court. On deposit of the said costs, the respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. On failure to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, the petition shall stand (4) dismissed and the impugned order of the Family Court shall stand revived. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp3258