SUMAN BHASKAR Vs. SURENDRA SINGH KHICHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge is dated 31.03.2016 as passed by the Family Court, Sikar closing the petitioner-wife's (hereinafter "wife") evidence in the divorce petition laid by the respondent-husband under Sec. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955") on the ground of cruelty and adultery.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 indicates that the wife was granted eight opportunities for leading her evidence subsequent to the closure of the respondent-husband's (hereinafter "husband") evidence on 02.07.2015. She however failed to avail the opportunities. On 30.01.2016, a ninth opportunity was granted to the wife on cost of Rs.1,000.00 to present her evidence on 8.03.2016. She however failed to do so. Her evidence was then closed. Thereafter an application was moved by her for reopening her evidence and for this she sought to rely upon a departmental order dated 14.06.2015 where she was required to go to Jodhpur for training-having been appointed as a Constable with the Rajasthan Police. The trial court however noted that there was nothing on record to establish that the wife was in training on 08.03.2016 at Jodhpur. It was also noted that the wife had herself presented an affidavit before the trial court on 16.11.2015. Further when the date was fixed for 08.03.2016, it was not stated that she would not be available on the aforesaid date for reasons of being in training at Jodhpur on the said date. The trial court also noted that there were no supporting documents with the application to establish that on 08.3.2016 the wife was at Jodhpur undergoing training. In this view of the matter, the Family Court finding that the wife was merely misusing the Court's earlier indulgences in adjourning the matter, proceeded to close her evidence.

(3.) Sec. 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 provides that "every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent." It is thus evident that the parties before the Family Court, after failure of conciliation proceedings, are expected to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the petition. Yet the conduct of the wife in the instant case is in the crosshair of the legislative mandate of expedited trials in matrimonial disputes. The wife does not appear to care for the law of the land and appears to take the legal processes for granted. The discretion of the Family Court in closing the wife's evidence on 08.03.2016 and dismissal of the application for reopening her evidence under the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 cannot, in the circumstances, be faulted with.