SATISH KUMAR RAINA Vs. ANJU RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have placed myself outside the jurisdiction of this court, therefore examine me on commission. This is the sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) THE present petitioner instituted a petition seeking divorce. This was preferred on 2.1.1996. Cruelty and deserting are the twin grounds for seeking divorce. After filing the petition, the petitioner appears to have gone to Switzerland. This litigation nevertheless is being pursued by him,

(3.) RESPONDENTS has also instituted petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions have been clubbed together. A joint trial is on. Issues were framed on 29.8.1998. The petitioner is to lead evidence. In the list of witnesses furnished by the petitioner, five names have been included. Petitioner has himself described as a witness. Two other witnesses are residing in Switzerland. The petitioner submits that he has two other ladies namely Alexandra and Claire on examined on commission in Switzerland. The trial court was of the opinion, that the petitioner who has moved by the court by filing a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the grounds indicated above, should appear in the court himself. The other question whether the said two ladies are to be examined on commission or not it was said would be gone into at a latter stage. It is this order passed on 27.8.1999 which is subject matter of challenge in this revision petition. The further fact is that another order has been passed by the trial court. As petitioner was not producing his evidence, his right to lead evidence has been closed. An order to this effect passed on 7.11.2000 is sought to be assailed by preferring another petition bearing no. CMP (CR)62/ 2001.