8-WP-4729-2026 (C).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4729 OF 2026 Sonali Ashok Sawai ...Petitioner/s VERSUS Sainath Taterao Pawar ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr.Dushyant Purekar, a/w. Mr. Rajat Dedhia a/w. Miss Esther Mary Mathew, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Agiwal, Advocate for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 02/03/2026 passed by the Family Court, Bandra whereby the Learned Judge has rejected the Petitioner's application to set aside the "no cross examination" order dated 20/08/2021 and reopen the evidence. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner stays in USA and she undertakes to go on with the matter without seeking any adjournment. If she fails to continue with the proceedings pending before the Family Court, the Family Court may pass appropriate orders against the Applicant, but an opportunity should be VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.09.09 10:59:07 +0530 8-WP-4729-2026 (C).doc Tikam given to the Petitioner to cross examine the Respondent and lead her evidence and requested to allow the Petition. 4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was aware about "no cross-examination" order passed against her. In spite of that, she did not choose to file any application for setting aside the "no cross-examination" order. It was only when the Learned Family Judge directed to interview with the child, then only the application was filed for setting aside the "no cross-examination" order and for permission to lead evidence. The said application was filed after thought and only to prolong the matter. Learned counsel further submitted that the Learned Family Judge has passed well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the Petition. 5. I have heard both leaned counsel. Perused the impugned order. While passing the order, the Learned Family Judge has observed that Petitioner chose to file the application only after she was directed to produce the minor child through video conference, thereafter she filed the application. Hence, Petitioner was not diligent and intentionally remained absent from the proceedings, in spite of the fact that the proceeding was well within her knowledge. On that ground, the Learned Family Judge has rejected the application. In my view, the Respondent has 8-WP-4729-2026 (C).doc Tikam filed custody petition of the minor child, who is presently with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the mother of the child, whereas, Respondent is father of the child. A "no cross-examination" order is passed against the Petitioner and her evidence is closed. However, as a matter of principle of natural justice, an opportunity should be given to the Petitioner to cross examine the Respondent. The Petitioner has undertaken that she will not seek any adjournment and she will proceed with the proceedings. Considering this fact, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 02/03/2026 passed below Exh. 64 by the learned Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. D-91 of 2026 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The Petitioner is permitted to cross examine the Respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent. (iv) The Petitioner shall complete the cross examination of the Respondent in two sessions, the dates be given as per the convenience of the Family Court. (v) The Petitioner shall appear before the Family Court physically, if her physical presence is required by the Family Court. Otherwise, she may appear through video conference, but in her 8-WP-4729-2026 (C).doc Tikam absence, her advocate shall continue with the proceedings, and the proceedings shall not be delayed on account of the Petitioner's absence. (v) The Petitioner is permitted to lead her evidence. (vi) The Family Court is requested to decide all the proceedings as early as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)