SCA/11712/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11712 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= BHAVNA AMIT PATHAKJI - Petitioner(s) Versus AMIT MANVANTCHANDRA PATHAKJI - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MTM HAKIM for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DIPEN C SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 19/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned advocate Shri Dipen Shah for respondent waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal today. SCA/11712/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioner is wife who is pursuing maintenance application against the husband since year 1996 without any conclusion. From document Annexure-C, it can be seen that issues whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance or not were framed way back in November 2003. Though earlier the litigation had reached this Court and two Courts had found that issues should achieve early end, so far the trial Court is not able to pronounce final decision on the application of the wife. 3. I therefore, find that some observations and directions are required to be issued to ensure that question of maintenance of wife at the hands of husband does not get unduly delayed making mockery of justice. The petitioner has approached this Court at the stage where her cross examination was in progress. During the cross examination the advocate of the husband put a suggestion to the petitioner that in the document exh.169/1/1 in paragraph-6, there are statements indicating that the wife lacked chastity. This was objected to by advocate of the wife. On this, learned Judge passed impugned order on 4.8.2008 permitting the question. 4. Learned advocate Shri Hakim for the petitioner submitted that no issue with respect to question of chastity of wife so as to disentitle her from SCA/11712/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT receiving maintenance has been framed. In that view of the matter, no question pertaining to the personal character of wife could be put. 5. Learned advocate Shri Shah on the other hand submitted that written statement of husband contains certain suggestions which amount to doubting the character of the wife. 6. In the present petition, it is not necessary for me to conclude this issue. Primarily, I find that controversial question is only in the form of suggestion to the witness with respect to the true contents of deposition of the husband produced at exh. 169/1/1. Such a suggestion apparently would be irrelevant. What is true contents of deposition, what is the effect of such contents and real interpretation thereof are matters to be judged by the Court after hearing arguments of both sides. Witness is not competent to comment on such issue. Only on the ground that question itself was wholly irrelevant, impugned order is set aside. 7. In continuation of my observations in the earlier portion of the order, I find it absolutely necessary to ensure that there is an early end to the trial. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that attempt of the husband is to endlessly drag the litigation. Learned advocate for the petitioner informed the Court SCA/11712/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT that next date of hearing is fixed on 24.9.2008. 8. I find that maintenance application was filed way back in the year 1996, which is yet to be disposed of, despite clear directions from this Court. It is therefore, directed that under any circumstances, cross examination of the wife shall be concluded latest by 30.9.2008. Respondent and his learned advocate shall render full cooperation and ensure that above direction is scrupulously complied with. Learned Judge is directed to ensure that there is no laxity in compliance with the directions. If need be learned Judge shall fix the proceedings for cross examination of the wife on day to day basis. The Counsel for the petitioner assures the Court the petitioner will make herself available in the cross examination on the date that trial Court may fix. 9. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. Direct service is permitted. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)