SANGEETA GEETA v. ASHUTOSH KUMAR RANJAN

passed an order which was challenged in Civil Revision no.302 of 2009 and the Hon’ble Judge who was hearing that particular civil revision, recorded a finding that there was no case made out of default in payment of arrears of maintenance and, as such, there could not be any question to direct issuance of coercive processes. On both the occasions the court was issuing a direction to the wife to cooperate by cross-examination of witnesses in expediting the matter and disposal of the petition within the time frame, as set down by the court. What appears from the impugned order is - 3 - that on 16.1.2009 the wife was again raising the same issue of non-payment of arrears and her maintenance and refused to cross-examine two witnesses who were produced on behalf of the husband and forced the court to discharge both of them. It is not that it was the solitary occasion that the wife was refusing to cross- examining the witness, there were several such occasions as may appear from orders subsequently passed by the Family Court,Patna on 24.1.2009,

9.2.2009, 6.3.2009 and 4.4.2009, the copies of which appear on the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party today in this revision petition. I have gone through each and every order myself and I find that the learned Principal Judge was finding him in a highly helpless situation on account of the conduct of the petitioner(wife) in not cross-examining the witnesses. That conduct appears completely in derogation of direction of this court. While hearing the present petition and while considering, as indicated above, the dates on which the petitioner refused cross-examining the witnesses including the husband I am firm in - 4 - holding a view that she wanted simply to dilate the proceedings as much as she could. This impression is held by the lower court also, because, the lower court, in almost all of its orders, has mentioned one fact in same words and with same purpose of highlighting the conduct of the petitioner that the purpose was by raising hyper-technical-issue to delay the disposal and not to allow the Court to proceed to dispose it of and on occasions she threatened the Court that she was likely to approach this court to bring stay order. I could understand the position of the Judge who is ordained to hear the Matrimonial case. The Judge must have become depressed and sad by finding himself helpless on account of the conduct of a party(wife)to the proceedings who was directed by this court to cooperate in the trial of the proceedings and ensure that she participated by cross-examining the witnesses. The petitioner appears not doing it. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that the grievance of the petitioner is that she was not paid arrears of maintenance or monthly maintenance and as such the husband should be - 5 - defaulted for non-payment and should be proceeded against which contention has already been rejected by one of the benches of this Court in C.R.no.302 of 2009. It might be a case of not meeting the schedules exactly as regards the time of the monthly maintenance or the arrears of maintenance. It has been brought to my notice that the first instalment was paid on

18.12.2006, the second on 16.1.2009 and the third on two dates in part, i.e. on 2.3.2009 and

15.3.2009 as may appear from order passed by the court below on 26.2.2009 and the last, i.e., the 4th, on 21st of April, 2009. I have observed earlier that I have an impression that the wife petitioner was attempting only to dilating the proceeding and that appears only with a purpose of extracting as much amount of maintenance as she could get. It gets strength from the fact that on all occasions she was refusing cross- examining the witnesses produced by the husband as per the direction of this Court. The court was pointed out either by her or by her counsel too on all such dates that she was approaching this court through a civil revision petition. This could be simply unacceptable that one - 6 - could be behaving in such a manner in a court where she was directed to participate and participate by cross-examination of witnesses! The court had no option but to discharge the witnesses on account of refusal. I do not see any reason to direct the recall of the witnesses of the petitioner for their cross- examination. If the petitioner so desires, she may produce her witnesses within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )