TARIT MOHAN PAL Vs. JAYANTI PAL (CHOUDHURY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2015 whereby the prayer of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') for adjournment of the case was rejected and his evidence was ordered to be closed.

(2.) The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance and in this maintenance proceeding she was examined on 15.05.2015 and, thereafter, the case was fixed for recording the statement of the husband and his witnesses on 11.6.15. On this date, the husband filed an application for adjournment of the case. He was not present but this application was rejected by stating that the grounds stated are not satisfactory.

(3.) This was the first date granted to the husband for leading his evidence and I am clearly of the view that the learned Family Judge should have granted at least one more opportunity to the husband and should not have closed the evidence on the first date itself.