' The validity of the order dated 17th April, 1980 has been assailed through this petition mainly on the ground that no proper opportunity was granted by the Judge, Family Court to the petitioner to produce his evidence.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner show that the case for dissolution of marriage was filed on 25th July, 1979. The petitioner was summoned on 11th November, 1979 though he appeared before the Judge, Family Court on 2nd December, 1979. Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on 6th December, 1979 and the case was adjourned for the evidence of respondent No, 2 to 21st February, 1980, when she concluded the same. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel, the case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner to 13th March, 1980. No evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner on that date.
Yet another opportunity was granted to him to produce his evidence on 17th April, 1980. He did not produce his evidence even on that date. As such, his evidence was closed and the case was decided in favour of respondent No, 2 on the basis of the evidence produced by her.
3. It is contended that since the petitioner was indisposed on both the dates indicated above, therefore, another opportunity should have been granted to hip to produce his evidence.
' I am afraid, this contention has no force in the given circumstances. Indisposition is not such an ailment which could prevent the petitioner from instructing his counsel as well as from making arrangement for the production of his evidence. The petitioner failed to produce evidence in spite of two opportunities having been granted to him. In the circumstances the learned Judge, Family Court was justified in closing his evidence.
4. Further, the impugned order shows that on a subsequent date fixed for evidence, the petitioner made an application for producing fresh set of witnesses though even on that date he was absent.
5. The impugned order being within the competence of the learned Judge, Family Court, I don't find any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution. The writ petition having no force is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.