(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the docket order passed by the learned Principal Family Court, Chennai dtd. 26/4/2022 in H.M.O.P. No. 2357 of 2015.
(2.) The Revision Petitioner is the respondent witness No. 3. The 1st respondent is the husband and the 2nd respondent is the wife. The original petition in H.M.O.P. No. 2357 of 2015 was filed by the 1st respondent husband against the 2nd respondent wife for dissolution of marriage. During the enquiry on the side of 2nd respondent wife, three witnesses were examined. This Revision Petitioner was examined as R.W. 3. He was examined in chief on 20/10/2021, 22/10/2021, 26/10/2021, 30/10/2021, 18/11/2021, 6/12/2021, 16/12/2021, 28/12/2021, 29/12/2021, 1/3/2022 and 10/3/2022. On 10/3/2022, the matter was adjourned to 21/3/2022 for further cross-examination of R.W. 3. Since the courts were functioning through video conference, the examination of witnesses was not taken place for some time and the cases were being adjourned. On 26/4/2022, a docket order was passed to issue witness warrant to R.W. 3/Revision Petitioner for his non-appearance. Aggrieved over that, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that for conduction of the cases before the Family Court, generally, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code is applicable. Hence, the learned Family Court does not have any powers to issue witness warrant to a witness for his non-appearance. The learned counsel for petitioner drew the attention of this court to Order XVI Rule 5 and submitted that the procedure contemplated under Order XVI Rule 10 should be observed, if the witness does not attend the court without any lawful excuse. In support of his above submissions, he also cited the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2006 in the case of Vinod Tiwari vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others. In the said judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as follows:-