(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.248 of 2017, the present appellant ? original petitioner has preferred this appeal.
(2.) Heard Mr. Y.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate for the respondent. Mr. Y.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the application for divorce filed by the appellant and has committed an error by not considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity).
(3.) Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the Family Court has misconceived the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that for examination in chief, it is not necessary or obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to remain present before the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court has committed an error in giving undue weightage to the residential address of the petitioner. Mr. Thakkar also contended that examination in chief by way of affidavit at Exh.16 clearly indicates that the same was filed through Power of Attorney, who is the real brother of the appellant. Mr. Thakker contended that having accepted the affidavit of examination in chief, the same has not been considered by the Family Court and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Family Court are erroneous and the Family Court has misdirected itself. It was also contended by Mr. Thakkar that learned Family Court has also not considered the fact that averments made by the appellant, are not controverted by the respondent herein. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Thakkar, appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order and remanding back the matter to the learned Family Court.