52-WP-5559-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5559 OF 2018 Vaishali Radheshyam Chavan … Petitioner Vs. Radhyeshyam Kalyanrao Chavan … Respondent Mr. Sachindra Shetye a/w Akshay Pansare for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Muley for the Respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the original respondent to challenge the order passed by the trial Court refusing to set aside the cross- order passed against the petitioner. The respondent-husband has filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The petitioner-wife contested the same by filing a written statement. The respondent examined himself, and the cross- examination was also completed. The respondent filed the examination-in-chief of witness no.2 on 17th November 2017. The proceedings were adjourned for the cross-examination of PW 2. On the next date, i.e. 8th December 2017, no cross-order was passed. On the next date, i.e., 5th January 2018, the petitioner filed an Page no. 1 of 5 MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date: 2025.11.29 15:48:12 +0530 52-WP-5559-2018.doc application for setting aside the no-cross order. The respondent opposed the application. By the impugned order, the application is dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage petition is pending in the Court at Niphad in the district of Nashik. The petitioner resides with her father at Amalner in the district of Jalgaon. He submits that, given the distance, the petitioner is required to travel to Niphad for the proceedings, accompanied by her advocate from Amalner. The petitioner’s advocate and the petitioner were unable to remain present, and according to the petitioner, there was confusion about which witness was to be cross-examined. However, the junior colleague of her advocate was present on the day when no cross-order was passed. He points out that, on the next date, the petitioner and her advocate remained present and applied to set aside the no-cross order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order takes a hyper-technical view, as not setting aside the no-cross-order would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, considering the nature of the litigation. He therefore submits that the impugned order would require interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent points out the various Page no. 2 of 5 52-WP-5559-2018.doc dates as recorded in the roznama. He submits that the petitioner had taken adjournments on various dates, and only with the intention of prolonging the litigation did not remain present, and subsequently applied for setting aside the no-cross order. He also relied upon the written say filed by the respondent on the application for setting aside the no-cross order. He thus submits that no fault can be found in the impugned order. The trial Court had rightly rejected the petitioner’s application. 5. I have carefully perused the papers of the petition. The petitioner has immediately, on the next date, applied for setting aside the no cross order. The petitioner has mentioned the reasons for not appearing on the earlier date and the confusion that led to the petitioner’s absence. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent in the written say, the respondent has raised an objection that the reasons mentioned in the application are false, and only to protract the litigation, the petitioner did not remain present and has filed application on a subsequent date. The dates of filing the examination-in-chief and the no-cross order show that it was passed on the next date. After the no cross order was passed, the petitioner appeared on the next date and applied to set aside the no cross order. The marriage petition is filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and Page no. 3 of 5 52-WP-5559-2018.doc desertion. No cross-order forecloses the right of the petitioner to cross-examine her father-in-law, whose evidence the respondent relied upon in support of his allegations. Hence, if the petitioner is not permitted to cross-examine PW 2, a serious consequence is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner. 6. Considering the immediate steps taken by the petitioner in seeking to set aside the no-cross order, I see no reason to refuse the permission as prayed for. The learned Judge has not recorded any reasons for disbelieving the grounds for setting aside the no cross order. In proceedings between the parties for dissolution of marriage, such a hyper-technical approach need not be adopted, especially when the party has taken immediate steps to set aside the no-cross order. This is, therefore, a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Hence, the Petition is allowed by passing the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 19th January 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Niphad, below Exhibit 41 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.63 of 2016 is quashed and set aside. Page no. 4 of 5 52-WP-5559-2018.doc (ii) Application at Exhibit 41 is allowed, and the order dated 8th December 2017 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW 2. (iii) The parties shall attend the trial Court on 15th December 2025, and accordingly, the trial Court shall fix the date for cross-examination of PW 2 as per the convenience of the Court and the parties. (iv) It is clarified that the petitioner shall not seek any further adjournment and shall cross-examine PW 2 on the date so fixed by the trial Court. (v) Considering the nature of the litigation and that it has been pending since 2016, the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the marriage petition and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. (vi) The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 5 of 5