1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ petition NO. 7587/2009 Naresh s/o Madhukar Koli ...Petitioner versus Sow. Tararani @Yogita w/o Naresh Koli ..Respondents. Shri K.C. Sant Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. Date : 17-11-2009 Per Court :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 14-10-2009 by which application filed by respondent / wife for cross examining petitioner came to be allowed. 2. The petitioner has filed an application for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the said proceeding, evidence of the parties is over. An earlier application filed by the respondent / wife for recalling present petitioner in the witness box came to be rejected. 2 3. However, it appears that subsequently since the issue relating to cruelty was not framed by the learned trial court, the application came to be filed by the present petitioner for framing said issue. Said application was allowed and issue relating to the cruelty was framed. However, even after said issue was framed, the petitioner filed purshis that he did not want to lead evidence in regard to that issue. Thereafter, the application came to be filed by respondent / wife for recalling present petitioner. Hence, present petition is preferred. 4. Shri Sant learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion, the application for recalling petitioner had been rejected, and therefore, the learned trial court ought not to have allowed the said application. He further submits that, since the evidence relating to issue of cruelty is already on record, the learned trial court has erred in allowing the application, for recalling the present petitioner. 6. Admittedly, first application of the respondent / wife which was rejected was prior to framing of the issue regarding cruelty. The present application which has been allowed is admittedly after the issue regarding cruelty has been framed. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial judge has committed any error in allowing the application. It is further to be noted that in 3 order to avoid the trial to prolong, the learned trial judge has taken care of the interest of the petitioner by observing that, the evidence that would be lead by the respondent / wife would only be for issue regarding the cruelty. 7. In view of the matter, no interference in the order of trial court is warranted. Hence, the petition is rejected. 8. Needless to say that, if the petitioner desires any re-examination after his cross examination is over, he may apply before learned trial court which would be considered by it in accordance with law. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] tsk/wp7587.09