96-WP-10161-2026 (C).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10161 OF 2026 Mahak Agarwal ...Petitioner/s VERSUS Nishant Agarwal ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Chaitanya Dixit a/w. Dhananjay K. Bhosale, for the Petitioner. Mr. Hrishikesh Giri a/w. Swapnil R. Chopade, Advocate for the Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Learned counsel for the Respondent tendered affidavit in reply. It is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to go through it and matter is kept at 3.00 p.m. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent. 4. The challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Family Court whereby the Learned Court has directed to appoint Court Commissioner to cross examine the Respondent. 5. It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is under cross examination. At present he is residing at Norway. The Petitioner is ready to cross examine the Respondent online. But the Learned Judge has appointed the Court Commissioner. It may take time to VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.09.23 11:56:31 +0530 96-WP-10161-2026 (C).doc Tikam cross examine the Respondent through Court Commissioner. But this fact is not considered by the Learned Family Court and has passed the order, directing the cross examination recording through Court Commissioner, which is erroneous. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he will finish the cross examination of the Respondent, as early as possible on the basis of availability of the Respondent through video conferencing and requested to allow the petition. 6. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that appropriate order be passed. 7. I have hear both learned counsel. Perused the impugned order. The Respondent is under cross. The Petitioner wishes to cross examine the Respondent in presence of Court instead of the Court Commissioner as I have told that while passing the order, the concerned Court was vacant and now the post is filled in and regular Court is available. Hence, the Petitioner can be permitted to cross examine the Respondent in Court and not through the Court Commissioner. The Petitioner shall finish the cross examination of the Respondent as early as possible. In view of the above, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The Impugned order dated 01/04/2026 passed below Exhibit 96-WP-10161-2026 (C).doc Tikam 58 in M.P.A. No. 2014 of 2023 by Family Court, Pune is quashed and set aside. (iii) The Petitioner shall cross examine the Respondent through video conferencing in presence of Court instead of Court Commissioner. (iv) The Family Court is requested to dispose of the pending proceedings as early as possible. (v) Writ Petition is disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)