1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8735 of 2007 Smt.Manisha Sudhir Kadam Petitioner Vs. Shri Sudhir Manikrao Kadam Respondent Mr.M.J.Bhatt for petitioner. Mr.R.G.Ketkar with Mr.R.M.patne for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner. . Rule. . Mr.Ketkar waives service for the respondent. . The respondent - husband has filed divorce petition registered as PA No.380 of 2006 before the Family Court at Pune and wants to seek divorce from the petitioner - wife. It appears the petitioner and her Advocate were present before the Family Court on 2 19/7/2007. On the next date i.e. 8/8/2007 an adjournment application came to be filed. On 22/8/2007 the husband examined his two witnesses and their cross-examination could not be held as the learned Advocate representing the wife remained absent. The third witness of the husband was examined on 11/9/2007 and again the wife’s Advocate remained absent. Therefore, all the witnesses examined on 22/8/2007 and 11/9/2007 could not be cross-examined by the present petitioner - wife. On 5/10/2007 she submitted an application at Exhibit 61 and prayed for the order of no cross to be recalled. The said order was passed on 11/9/2007 itself and this application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 5/10/2007. The application at Exhibit 61 submitted by the wife does not disclose that her Advocate could not remain present on account of his father’s demise on both the dates i.e. 22/8/2007 as well as on 11/9/2007. Even on 5/10/2007 when the application was presented it appears the learned Advocate was absent. It is stated before this Court, even the Advocate representing the wife is no more now. . If that be so, it would be appropriate that 3 the wife is given a last opportunity to cross-examine all the three witnesses and also to adduce her own evidence, if so desired. Mr. Ketkar opposed the petition stating that the wife is well educated and she is running a beauty parlour at Umarga in Osmanabad District. Mr.Ketkar also alleged that she has been deliberately remaining absent in the Court proceedings so as to delay the trial of the divorce petition. . Be that as it may, ends of justice would be met if the wife is given a last chance to cross-examine all the three witnesses examined on behalf of the husband and hence the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5/10/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the application at Exhibit 61 filed in P.A.No.380 of 2006 stands allowed. The petitioner - husband will ensure that all the three witnesses are present before the Family Court on the next date and on engaging a lawyer if so desired, but in any case all these three witnesses shall be cross-examined by or on behalf of the petitioner-wife on that date. For adducing her evidence she may seek a short adjournment but in any case the pending petition for divorce shall be 4 decided by the trial Court by 31st July 2008. . Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (B.H.MARL