THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.Nos.1916 and 1917 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1916 of 2011 is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.590 of 2011,while C.R.P.No.1917 of 2011 is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.566 of 2011, both of which were moved in O.P.No.384 of 2008, instituted by the respondent wife seeking annulment of her marriage with the petitioner herein. I.A.No.590 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner herein, the husband, for reopening the O.P., for allowing collection of further evidence by way of examination of a doctor, who is said to have clinically examined the petitioner. The said I.A. was contested by the respondent wife pointing out that the petitioner husband is dragging the proceedings on one pretext or the other and the delay in finalization of the proceedings is causing untoward misery and hardship to the respondent wife. The learned Judge of the Family Court has clearly recorded that after closure of the evidence of the petitioner in O.P., wife, the respondent husband in the O.P., was examined, even at that stage, matter had to undergo two adjournments on the pretext of arriving at an amicable settlement between the parties. As the respondent husband has failed to either settle the matter amicably with the petitioner wife or produce sufficient evidence, the Family Court considered it appropriate to close his evidence and posted the O.P., for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner herein, the husband, moved the I.A., for reopening of the suit for adducing evidence on his behalf by way of examination of a doctor. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner has undergone clinical examination at Hyderabad Andrology Center on 07-03- 2011 and he had also collected the findings of various tests that he has undergone there. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that this medical opinion and the clinical findings of the Hyderabad Andrology Center, are essentially needed and required to be brought on record for enabling the Family Court to arrive at a proper and correct conclusion. It is further urged that the material now sought to be brought on record will have a clear bearing upon the merits of the matter. For bringing this medical opinion on record, the petitioner herein wanted to examine the Andrologist, who examined him on 07-03-2011, as a witness on his behalf. Though the affidavit filed in support of these Revisions is silent, at my instance, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein has drawn a memo and filed it into the Court on 05-07-2011, which is now taken on record. It is submitted that Dr. M. Srinivas, Andrologist, Hyderabad Andrology Center, 202, Moghal Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, is sought to be examined on behalf of the petitioner. Though cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Family Court Judge for dismissing the I.A.No.590 of 2011 and declining to reopen the evidence, but nonetheless, I find that providing an opportunity to the petitioner herein, to produce such material, which might have some bearing upon the principal controversy at issue between the parties, will, ultimately, help the Court to arrive at a correct finding. Further, it would also help the parties either to rely upon the said medical opinion or to work out their respective rights as desired by them. The learned counsel for the respondent wife is right in pointing out that the petitioner herein, the husband, has undergone the examination after the evidence on his side is closed. Therefore, it is a clear case of the husband trying to build up a new case. From the material that has been placed on the file of this case, I could understand that the petitioner husband has undergone clinical examination at the Hyderabad Andrology Center, on 07-03-2011. I find that the material in this regard will be relevant to be brought on record of the O.P., to enable the Court to arrive at a correct conclusion. Since the criticism of the respondent wife that the petitioner has undergone the examination only after closure of his evidence is correct, the petitioner herein can be made to compensate the respondent wife for the loss of time that occurred in the process by making him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensatory costs. Therefore, subject to the petitioner husband herein depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, before 15- 07-2011, O.P.No.384 of 2008 shall stand reopened, for further evidence of the respondent husband in the said O.P. For the said purpose, I direct the learned Family Court Judge –cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, to post the matter on 19-07-2011. The learned Judge will examine Dr. M. Srinivas, Andrologist, Hyderabad Andrology Center, if present in the Court on that day, otherwise, the learned Judge, Family Court, would appoint an Advocate Commissioner for examining Dr. Srinivas at Hyderabad, and the expenses in this regard will be borne by the respondent husband in the O.P. The respondent husband will also deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in such event, to cover the transfer expenses of the petitioner wife and her counsel from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and back. After the petitioner herein deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/-, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court will transmit this compensatory costs to Smt. Ponnaluri Vishnu Vandana, at House No.21-4-1B, 1st Floor, Penumatsa Vari Street, Muthyalampadu, Vijayawada, by way of crossed account payee cheque /demand draft. The respondent herein is entitled to encash the same. In view of allowing the I.A.No.590 of 2011 and reopening O.P.No.384 of 2008 for further evidence, I.A.No.566 of 2011, which is moved for reopening the evidence of RW-1 also stands allowed. Consequently, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed. If the petitioner commits default in depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- on or before 15-07-2011 before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court or fails to deposit promptly a sum of Rs.2,000/- to meet the expenditure of the petitioner wife in the O.P., in case of necessity to undertake a travel to Hyderabad, the learned Judge, Family Court, would be at liberty to close the further evidence on behalf of the respondent husband. It is needless for me to observe that the learned Family Court Judge would accord priority to the O.P.No.384 of 2008, so as to ensure that the same is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the end of this year. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 8th July 2011