1 (23) WP 9630/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2010 Vivek Sujan Jain .. Petitioner Vs. Sonali Vivek Jain .. Respondent Mr. A. M. Vernekar for the Petitioner. Ms. Mrunalini Deshmukh for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 10th January, 2011 P.C. 1. The husband has challenged the order of the learned 5th Family Court Judge, Mumbai dated 4th October, 2010 in respect of directions sought for case management of his Petition. The husband relies upon Section 21 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act with regard to the trial. Though that legislation shows an ideal situation, it becomes impossible for the Court to adhere to the time schedule as would be required. In view of the parties own deficiencies in producing oral as well as documentary evidence and in view of the enormous amount of pending litigation which the Court has to cater to, the Court may not be able to fully follow the said provision. It must be remembered that the Petition of this Petitioner is not the only Petition. The Court has to consider the Petitioner’s application was for fixing a time. Instead of fixing the time, the Court has expedited the Petition and directed both the parties to cooperate in the hearing of the matter. After this order has been passed, the 2 (23) WP 9630/10 Petitioner’s cross-examination has been completed. 2. I am told that the Petitioner, who is the director of M/s. D. S. P. Merrill Lynch Ltd., Mumbai, has not produced his income tax returns. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent is right in contending that those are the basic documents which must be produced by the Petitioner, even without he being called upon to do so, since the Petitioner claims to be a salaried employee/director. The salary slips relied upon by the Petitioner must be substantiated by his income tax returns. Even other income, if any, properties of the Petitioner etc. would be required to be seen to adjudicate upon the maintenance amount and the extent of alimony. Despite the cross-examination of the Petitioner being complete, those documents have not been produced. The Respondent would be constrained to issue witness summons to produce the documents. It would do well for the Petitioner to produce those documents to avoid needless applications and the consequent waste of time of the Court as well the Petitioner. 3. It is seen that the Petitioner has two other witnesses. The affidavit of examination-in-chief of his mother and the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the other witness, whom the Petitioner desires to examine, is not yet filed. If the affidavits are filed one after another, the Respondent’s Counsel would have to take time to consider them for instructions. It would do well for the Petitioner to file all the affidavits of examination- in-chief at one time since that is the case made out by him. If that is done, the Respondent’s Advocate agrees to cross-examine both the witnesses on the next date of 3 (23) WP 9630/10 hearing. 4. It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner would close his case after the evidence of 2 witnesses is led. 5. The Respondent, therefore, shall file her affidavit of examination-in-chief within 2 weeks of the completion of the cross-examination of the Petitioner’s witness. The Respondent shall keep her witnesses present in Court. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that aside from her, she would examine her uncle, grand- mother, grand-father. It is directed that these witnesses may be examined if they are not repetitious. Repetitious evidence cannot be entertained. 6. The cross-examination shall be undertaken by the learned Judge in expediting the Petition as per her convenience and not the convenience of the Petitioner. It is not for the Petitioner to direct the Court. It is for both the parties to follow the directions of the Court. 7. Aside from these directions the Petition stands dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)