1 wp6910.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6910 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P. Patil, Advocate for respondent. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Wani for petitioner-wife and Mr. Patil for the respondent-husband. 2. The proceedings for grant of divorce are filed by husband on the ground of incompetency of wife to consummate the marriage. In those proceedings, he filed application and sought medical examination of the wife. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 30th April, 2010, allowed that application. 3. Advocate Mr. Wani contends that only because of such allegations which are still not substantiated, the medical examination could not have been ordered. He further attempts to point out that according to husband 2 wp6910.10 medical examination is already done and those records are available. 4. Mr. Patil learned Counsel for the respondent- husband is disputing the assertion of Advocate Mr. Wani. According to him, the medical examination would put an end to controversy once for all. Trial Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction in the matter. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that only because of the rival allegations, the medical examination have been ordered. Those allegations are still not substantiated. Looking to the controversy in the matter, I find it just to keep application at Exhibit-20 moved by the respondent-husband pending till the respondent brings some material on record and substantiates his assertion. If the trial Court is satisfied that there is material on record which warrants such medical examination, the trial Court will hear the parties on application at Exhibit-20 and pass fresh orders on the same. It is made clear that the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed below Exhibit-20, shall not come in any way when it will reconsider application Exhibit-20. 6. With these observations and directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. Both the Counsel have requested for expeditious disposal of the H.M.P. No.81 of 2009. The Trial Court is directed to decide the said 3 wp6910.10 proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 31st December, 2011. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp6910.10