L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashIn this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 16.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Family Court thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioner for waiving off costs of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the petitioner by the Family Court vide order dated 17.08.2013 Annexure P-2. Petitioner-husband-Mohan Joshi has filed divorce petition against respondent-wife-Kanika Joshi. The case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 17.08.2013. The petitioner failed to lead any evidence despite last extended opportunity on payment of costs. The Matrimonial Court granted another final opportunity to the petitioner for his evidence on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Another opportunity was granted to the petitioner for his evidence, instead of closing his evidence by Court order, because the lis pertains to matrimonial dispute between the parties.
2. The petitioner filed application for waiver of costs of Rs. 5,000/- alleging that the petitioner''s counsel had to go on account of death of her father-in-law. The said application has been dismissed by the Family Court vide order Annexure P-1 which is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that copy of petitioner''s affidavit of examination-in-chief was supplied to the opposite party on 17.08.2013 and therefore, costs should not have been imposed on the petitioner because his counsel was out of station due to death of her father-in-law.
5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, which cannot be accepted. The petitioner himself was not present in the Court on 17.08.2013. It has been specifically so mentioned in order dated 17.08.2013 Annexure P-2. Even in application moved by the petitioner (copy shown by the counsel), it has not been stated that the petitioner was present in person in the Court on 17.08.2013. Even proxy counsel for the petitioner, who was present, did not make any submission before the Matrimonial Court that original counsel for the petitioner was out of station due to death of her father-in-law. On the other hand, the matrimonial Court by order Annexure P-2 granted favour to the petitioner by granting another final opportunity for his evidence instead of closing the evidence of the petitioner by Court order. Absence of petitioner''s counsel on 17.08.2013 had no bearing because evidence of the petitioner was not present on that date. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Family Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is misconceived and is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
