902-WP-5758-2025.doc Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5758 OF 2025 Vikas Sahwney …Petitioner Versus Aabha Sharma Wife Of Vikas Sawhney & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Waqar Pathan, for the Petitioner. Ms. Hritika Shroff a/w Mr. Filji Frederick i/b FF & Associates, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for the Respondent-State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 14 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Pathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Hritika Shroff along with Mr. Filji Frederick, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned Orders dated 30th September 2025 and 7th October 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Belapur below Exhibit-64 and Exhibit-65, respectively (“impugned Orders”). 3. By the impugned Order dated 30th September 2025 application bearing Exhibit-64 in Petition No. E/24 of 2024 has been rejected and 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.11.17 22:43:17 +0530 902-WP-5758-2025.doc by the impugned Order dated 7th October 2025 the Application bearing Exhibit-65 filed in Petition No. E/24 of 2024 has been rejected. 4. By said application bearing Exhibit-64 following prayer is sought :- “a) Adjourn the hearing of the present matter fixed on 30th September 2025 and re-schedule it for 7th or 8th October 2025 for further cross-examination of the Petitioner;” 5. The learned Judge, Family Court, has passed following Order on said application bearing Exhibit-64 :- “1 Seen the application & say. 2 Cross exam of the petitioner was conducted by Adv. Pathan and it was completed on last date. 3 Now, today the petitioner has filed her evidence close pursis. 4 On next date, the respondent shall file his evidence affidavit. With these observations this application is disposed of.” (Emphasis added) 6. In the said application bearing Exhibit-65 following prayers are sought :- “a) Recall its order dated 30th September 2025, whereby the opportunity of the Respondent to cross-examine the Petitioner was closed; b) Permit the Respondent to cross-examine the Petitioner on the next date fixed; and c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” (Emphasis added) 2 902-WP-5758-2025.doc 7. The learned Judge, Family Court has passed following Order :- “1. Perused the application and say. 2. Heard. 3. The cross exam of the petitioner is already completed. The petitioner has also filed her evidence close pursis. 4. Today, the matter is listed for the evidence of the respondent. 5. The respondent is not paying the amount of interim maintenance regularly. 6. The proceeding u/s. 125 CrPC is a summary and speedy remedy for the destitute wife, minor children and infirm parents. 7. The recording of evidence in proceedings before Family Court is governed by the provisions of S. 14, 15 & 16 of Family Courts Act, 1984. 8. Already sufficient time was given to the respondent to cross examine the wife and he has taken extensive cross examination of the wife. 9. It appears that the respondent is only interested in protracting the trial of the petition. With these observations, this application is rejected. The respondent shall file his evidence on next date without fail.” (Emphasis added) 8. Thus, in the said Application bearing Exhibit-65, a prayer was sought to recall the Order dated 30th September 2025 and to grant an opportunity to the present Petitioner i.e. the husband, to cross-examine the present Respondent i.e. the wife. 9. Perusal of the record shows that extensive cross-examination has 3 902-WP-5758-2025.doc been conducted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 18th September 2025 and 24th September 2025 and the same was concluded on 24th September 2025. Paragraph No.11 i.e. the last Paragraph of the cross-examination, reads as under :- ß11- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh eh ekÖ;k vtkZP;k ifjPNsn dz- 5 e/;s fyghysyk etdwj dsoG tkc ns.kkjsph izfrek [kjkc dj.;klkBh fyghysyk vkgs- eh ekÖ;k vtkZrhy ifjPNsn dz- 5 o 6 P;k etdqjkP;k lanHkkZus dkxni= nk[ky dsysys ukghr- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] tkc ns.kkjsph cnukeh dj.;klkBh eh ekÖ;k vtkZP;k ifjPNsn dz- 7 o 8 e/;s etdwj fyfgysyk vkgs- eh diMs fodzhpk O;olk; lq: dsyk uOgrk- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] eh tkc ns.kkjsdMwu iSls mdG.;klkBh gk nkok nk[ky dsyk vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] vkEgh lkscr jkgr vlrkuk tkc ns.kkjsuh ekÖ;k loZ vkFkhZd xjtkaph dkGth ?ksryh gksrh- myVrikl laiyk- Qsjrikl.kh ukgh- csykiwj- fnukad % 24@09@2025Þ 10. Perusal of the entire cross-examination, including Paragraph No.11, shows that not only extensive cross-examination of the Respondent-wife was conducted by learned Counsel of the Petitioner- husband, but suggestions were also given which are recorded at the fag end of the cross-examination in Paragraph No.11. At the end of the cross-examination the learned Judge, Family Court, has specifically recorded that the cross-examination is completed and there is no re- examination. The cross-examination clearly shows that it was completed on that date i.e. on 24th September 2025. Thereafter, the Respondent i.e. Petitioner in Petition No. E/24/2024, has filed Evidence Closing Pursis on 30th September 2025 i.e. Exhibit-63. 4 902-WP-5758-2025.doc 11. Subsequently, Application bearing Exhibit-64 was filed by the Petitioner-husband, inter alia stating that the matter was kept for continuation of evidence and further cross-examination. However, the said statement in the Application dated 30th September 2025 bearing Exhibit-64 (Page 87) is totally incorrect, as can be seen from Paragraph No.11 i.e. the fag end of the cross-examination which specifically records that the cross-examination was concluded on 24th September 2025. The said Application bearing Exhibit-64 was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, by specifically recording that the cross-examination of the Respondent-wife was conducted and completed on the last date i.e. on 24th September 2025 and that the Respondent had filed her Evidence Closing Pursis. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed that on the next date the Respondent shall file his evidence Affidavit. 12. Thereafter, again the Application for recall of the witness was filed on 7th October 2025 bearing Exhibit-65. It is relevant to note Paragraph Nos.1 to 5 of the said Application dated 7th October 2025 bearing Exhibit-65, which reads as under :- “1. That the present Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. 2. That on 30th September 2025, the matter was fixed for continuation of evidence and further cross-examination of the Petitioner. 5 902-WP-5758-2025.doc 3. That on the said date, the Respondent had preferred an application for adjournment on bona fide grounds, as the Advocate on Record for the Respondent was medically unwell and unable to effectively conduct the proceedings. 4. That this Hon’ble Court, however, was pleased to reject the adjournment application and proceeded to close the opportunity of the Respondent to further cross-examine the Petitioner’s evidence. 5. That the Respondent submits that the said closure has caused serious prejudice to his defence. The inability to proceed with cross-examination on 30th September 2025 was neither willful nor deliberate, but was occasioned by unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Respondent.” (Emphasis added) Thus, what is sought to be contended is that on 30th September 2025 the matter was fixed for continuation of evidence and further cross- examination of the Original Petitioner i.e. of the present Respondent. As noted herein above, the said statement is totally incorrect, since the cross-examination of PW-1 was completed on 24th September 2025. In fact, the Court has specifically recorded on 24th September 2025 at the fag end of the cross-examination that “Cross-examination” is completed and further recorded that there is “No re-examination”. 13. The learned Judge of the Family Court, while rejecting the Exhibit-65 Application, has inter alia held as follows :- i. The cross exam of the Respondent is already completed. The Respondent has also filed her evidence close pursis. ii. The matter is listed for the evidence of the Petitioner. 6 902-WP-5758-2025.doc iii. The Petitioner is not paying the amount of interim maintenance regularly. iv. Already sufficient time was given to the Petitioner to cross examine the wife and he has taken extensive cross examination of the wife. v. The Petitioner is interested in protracting the trial of the petition. 14. Thus, the learned Judge of the Family Court has taken into consideration that the cross-examination of the Petitioner i.e. the present Respondent was completed. The Evidence Closing Pursis had also been filed. The matter was thereafter listed for the evidence of the Respondent i.e. the present Petitioner. Proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC is a summary in nature and speedy remedy to the wife. Sufficient time was given to the Respondent to cross-examine the wife and he has already conducted extensive cross-examination. 15. Apart from these aspects, the learned Judge of the Family Court, has also recorded that the Petitioner is not paying the amount of interim maintenance regularly. Admittedly, the arrears are about Rs.23,20,000/-. The Advocate of the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, made a statement that the Petitioner is not in a position to pay the entire arrears of maintenance. 16. This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is an extraordinary and equitable remedy. 7 902-WP-5758-2025.doc 17. In the facts and circumstances and for above reasons, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 8