ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8010 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8010 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8010 OF 2008 Unnati Manish Trivedi ...Petitioner Vs. Manish Suryakant Trivedi ...Respondent. Mr.H.V.Kode for the Petitioner. Mr.S.Wassoodeo for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th December, 2008. : 19th December, 2008. : 19th December, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The Petitioner-wife has moved this application for recalling the Respondent-Husband for further cross-examination. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, rejected the said application rightly by observing that:- "6. It can be said that the affidavit was filed by the Petitioner on 29.2.2008. He was cross-examined by her advocate on 4.2.2008 and on 5.4.2008 his second witness was cross-examined by her advocate. The case was fixed on 9.6.2008 for filing her claim affidavit, but she ( 2 ) filed an application for adjournment and it was granted to her and the next date was fixed on 27.6.2008 for her evidence. But, instead of filing her evidence she filed this application for permission to cross-examine the witness and therefore as per the above judgment it can be said that immediately she has not filed this application for recalling the witness. So also the petitioner was cross-examined by her advocate on the point of his income. He has denied about e-mail and therefore argument of the counsel for the respondent has no force that he has to show some documents to the petitioner in the cross-examination. 8. In the case of Bal Krishna Shivappa Shetty V/s. Mahesh reported in 2003(III), Maharashtra Law Journal, 47, Their Lordships held that it is the Court who has power to recall the witness and it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the witness cannot be recalled. In the present case it can be said that the ( 3 ) counsel for the petitioner has admitted the documents which were filed by the respondent on 4.4.2008 and afterwards the cross-examination was started. If we peruse the documents which were filed by her on record on 29.2.2008 vide Exh.48 the documents after Sr.No.14 are mostly related to the respondent. The Petitioner has denied that he knows one Dhansukh and an e-mail was shown to him and therefore it can be said that the counsel for the respondent has already shown the documents. The point which he has to bring on record about his income is already cross-examined by her advocate." 3. The basic petition is filed by the Respondent along with those documents which the Petitioner wants to recall to recross-examine the Petitioner. Those documents are part of the record. As recorded that the Respondent was also cross-examined on that point. 4. In this background to move this application by the Petitioner at the stage where the Court had already ( 4 ) ordered the Petitioner to give her evidence, rightly rejected. There is no perversity. 4. The Petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. 5. However, the time is granted till 09/01/2009, to the Petitioner to file an affidavit for examination-in-chief, as a last chance. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)