Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77885 (ALL)

PRASANNA SHUKLA v. ATUL KUMAR SHUKLA

A227/7785/2025 · 2025-07-24

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122629 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7785 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prasanna Shukla Respondent :- Atul Kumar Shukla Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.07.2025, rejecting paper no. 119 ga filed by the defendant wife for permitting the wife to cross-examine the plaintiff Atul Kumar. 3. The said application has been rejected by order dated 10.07.2025. The court below has recorded a finding that on five dates i.e. 14.02.2025, 17.02.2025, 20.02.2025, 01.05.2025 & 06.05.2025, the petitioner cross-examined the plaintiff and thereafter, on 06.05.2025, the cross-examination of PW-1 was completed and for remaining evidence another date was fixed. On 26.05.2025, as the petitioner absented, the right to cross-examining the witness was closed by order dated 26.05.2025. The said order was recalled on an application moved by the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the PW-2. Thereafter the petitioner cross-examined the PW-2 and now, a fresh application has been moved for further cross-examining the PW-1. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once an application was moved by the petitioner to recall the order closing the right of cross-examination of witnesses of the petitioner, the prayer ought to have made in the said application itself and not by means of a separate application and this clearly demonstrate that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the matrimonial case is pending since 2019 and the petitioner appeared in the year 2022. The matrimonial proceeding is not being decided because of the non cooperation of the petitioner which is an utter violation of mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. Without commenting on the conduct of the petitioner, I find that no illegality has been committed by the court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 7. This petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad