1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6073/2011 (KSHAMA @ ANAMIKA ABHAY TAMGIRE VERSUS MAHADEORAO HARIBHAU TAMGIRE & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.M. Shitut, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 9 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Family Court No.4, Nagpur rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for issuing of summons to a Specialist Doctor to remain present along with the requisite papers pertaining to the treatment of the petitioner during the period of hospitalization till the date of filing of the application. The petitioner had filed the Hindu Marriage Petition for return of the ‘Streedhan’ Articles against the respondent nos.1 and 2, her in-laws. The prayer sought by the application filed by the petitioner for examining the expert Doctor could not have been granted by the Family Court or for that matter any Court as there was no relevance whatsoever of the Doctor’s evidence for proving that the petitioner had not carried her ‘Streedhan’ Articles while leaving her matrimonial home. The Family Court rightly held that the Doctor’s evidence was not relevant at all for deciding the claim of the petitioner for return of ‘Streedhan’ Articles. The Family Court found that the Expert Doctor was not a 2 material witness for deciding the issue involved in this case. On a perusal of the application and pleadings, it appears that the Doctor’s evidence would not have been relevant for deciding the claim of the petitioner for return of ‘Streedhan’ Articles. Since the application was totally misconceived, the Family Court rightly rejected the application. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE APTE