CHHAYA VIKRAM MULE Vs. VIKRAM NARAYAN MULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 16th July, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order, the application filed by the Petitioner herein for being permitted to lead evidence came to be rejected.

(3.) THE Petitioner herein is the original Respondent in the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 142 of 2007 which has been filed by the Respondent herein seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground of the Petitioner herein being of unsound mind, a ground which finds place in clauses 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the said ground the trial Court, by an order dated 13th October, 2009 had initially sought a report from the Sassoon General Hospital Pune. However, it seems that thereafter, since the petitioner was residing with her parents in Ahmednagar, the report of the Civil Surgeon from Ahmednagar was sought. The said report ultimately came to be filed on 16th July, 2010. The Roznama of the said Hindu Marriage Petition No. 142 of 2007 discloses that since the said report was awaited, the petitioner had filed applications for adjournments in so far as the recording of evidence was concerned. The numbers of such applications have been mentioned in the impugned order. On 16th July, 2010 when the said report was placed on record, the Petitioner moved an application for being permitted her to lead evidence in view of the said report which according to her was in her favour and therefore there was no impediment for her to lead evidence. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order on the ground that inspite of the earlier applications, whose numbers have been mentioned in the impugned order, the Petitioner had not taken steps to lead evidence. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in the present petition.