Ayesha Qureshi vs Afham Qureshi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
1 MP-4806-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4806 of 2026
AYESHA QURESHI AND OTHERS
Versus
AFHAM QURESHI
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shri Ajay Bagadia along with Shri Akash Rathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Saily Purandare, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India by challenging the order passed under section 151 of the C.P.C.
whereby right to cross-examine the witness is sought to be reopened
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that when the
matter was listed for cross-examination of the witness, more particularly, the
father, the petitioner/s could not remain present on that date and as the Court
has closed the right to cross-examine the witness, it is contended that only
single opportunity was granted to the petitioner/s, which could not be availed
due to some circumstances, therefore, the petitioner/s had filed an application
under section 151 of the CPC for granting permission to cross-examine the
witness before the trial Court, which is erroneously rejected by order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
2 MP-4806-2026
24/07/2026 and also submitted that essentially, the petitioner no. 1 being a

lady, not getting benefit by way of monitory consideration from the husband
and if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner/s, then the interest of
justice will survive and by considering the concept of fact, one more
opportunity may be granted to the petitioner/s and the petitioner/s is ready to
abide by any condition, therefore, he prays that present petition be allowed.
4 . Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents, by drawing my
attention towards chronology updates and events mentioned in the reply
along with written submissions, he has submitted that on earlier occasion
also, vide order dated 29/10/2025, this Hon'ble Court has allowed the M.P.
no. 5560 of 2025, restored the petitioners' right to cross-examine and thereby
granting another opportunity to prosecute the proceeding. Thereafter, he has
submitted that the matter is adjourned for 24 times and on 07/05/2026 in
MCC no. 4372 of 2025, this Hon'ble Court had directed the personal
appearance of the parties on 11/05/2026. On 11/05/2026, the matter was
repeatedly called out through the day before the Family Court. Despite
repeated calls, neither the petitioner/s, nor counsel for the petitioner/s
remained present. Consequently, at 3:25 pm, the learned Family Court closed
the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witness. He has further submitted
that the petitioner/s filed an application under section 151 of the CPC before
the Family Court seeking recall of the order dated 11/05/2026 by filing an
application on 19/06/2026. The petitioners have also filed M.P. no. 4165 of
2026 challenging the same order i.e. dated 11/05/2026, even though the
application under section 151 of the CPC remained pending. On 20/07/2026,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
3 MP-4806-2026
the application under section 151 of the CPC was heard at length before the

Family Court and argument was concluded and the matter was reserved for
judgment on 24/07/2026. On 22/07/2026, M.P. no. 4165 of 2026 was heard
at length and was thereafter, dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the
petitioner/s without seeking or obtaining liberty to institute this petition. On
24/07/2026, the Family Court pronounced a detailed and reasoned order
dismissing the petitioners' application under section 151 of the CPC.
Thereafter, the petitioners has filed present petition, whereby it is pointed out
that the petitioners have also assailed the order dated 11/05/2026 along with
the consequential order 24/07/2026, therefore, he has submitted that this is
nothing, but clear misuse of the process of law. Though the Court has shown
all the necessary sympathy to the petitioner/s, the petitioner/s has not
deliberately availed the opportunity and therefore, the Court has rightly
dismissed the application filed under section 151 of the CPC. He has further
submitted that on earlier occasion also, the Court had granted permission to
withdraw the petition, though the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/s
has suppressed the material fact in the petition by not disclosing about the
factum of the application under section 151 of the CPC as well as earlier
M.P. filed in pursuant to the same relief, therefore, he has submitted that no
further leniency is required to be shown to the petitioner/s. The Court has to
examine veracity, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Court
under section 151 of the CPC and considering the tenor of the order, it
cannot be said that the Court has committed any jurisdictional error, which
warrants any interference by this Court, therefore, he prays that the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
4 MP-4806-2026
petition be dismissed.

5. I have considered rival submissions and also considered the scope
of Article 227 of the Constitution, which reads as under :
"227. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court
may—
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the
officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all
clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising
therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under
clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the
time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of
superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating
to the Armed Forces."
6. The Court cannot sit in appeal as also cannot substitute the finding
given by the trial Court. Essentially, the impugned order is passed under
section 151 of the CPC, Section 151 of the CPC is required to be referred
hereunder:
151. Saving of inherent powers of Court .-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent
power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice,
or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
which is inherent powers, whereby the Court can exercise discretion, if
no other remedy is available under the specific provision. In the present case,
it transpires that the petitioner/s has availed the opportunity by challenging
the order of closing his right to cross-examine the witness, though on the
different ground, by way of M.P. no. 5560 of 2025, the Court has granted
opportunity by restoring the petitioners' right to cross-examine by order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
5 MP-4806-2026
dated 29/10/2025. Thereafter, it seems that on 11/05/2026, though

repeatedly, the trial Court has called out the matter, neither the petitioner/s,
nor the counsel for the petitioner/s remained present and the Court has closed
the right to cross-examine the witness. In between the period i.e. 29/10/2025
to 11/05/2026, it is relevant to note that about 24 adjournments were granted
by the trial Court under one pretext or another. By considering the aspect of
conduct of the petitioner/s, whereby though the petitioner/s has availed the
remedy by way of filing application under section 151 of the CPC, the
petitioner/s has filed M.P no. 4165 of 2026 by challenging the same order
dated 11/05/2026, which is subject matter of the challenge in the application
filed under section 151 of the CPC. When this fact was brought to the notice
of the Court by learned counsel for the respondent on the earlier occasion of
the hearing of M.P. and since the petitioner no. 1 being a lady, though
initially the Court is of the opinion that such case is a gross case of
suppression of the material fact and the petition is required to be dismissed
by imposing heavy cost. On the request made by learned counsel for the
petitioner/s, the Court did not impose any cost and permitted the petitioner/s
to withdraw the petition. Thereafter, the application filed under section 151
of the CPC was also dismissed. On bare reading of the order passed under
section 151 of the CPC, the Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the
trial Court has given proper opportunity before passing of the order, more
particularly, considering the fact that the order passed in earlier round of
litigation in M.P., no. 5560/2025 which is passed in the year 2025 and
almost six months time and 24 adjournments are granted, this fact is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
6 MP-4806-2026
required to be keep in the mind and also considering the fact that on the

given date, which is fixed for cross-examination of the witness, the
petitioner/s has failed to remain present on that date/s and avail the
opportunity. The Court has rightly exercise the discretion by considering all
the materials available on record and come to the conclusion by closing the
right of cross-examination of the witness. By way of deciding the application
under section 151 of the CPC, the Court has also considered all these
relevant aspects and passed the order, which is also the subject matter of the
challenge. Vide order dated 24/07/2026, the Court has observed as under :
‘’ 13.04.2026 ,
इस संबंध म  आदेश प का दनांक का अवलोकन कया जसम प कार
11.05.2026 11:30
को िनयत ितिथ को बजे ितपर!ण हेतु उप &थत होने हेतु िनद 'िशत
, ,
कया गया था ले कन ाथ) अिधव *ा ाथ) स हत उप &थत रहे जब क ित ाथ) के िसफ
3:25
अिधव *ा आए ज.ह भोजन अवकाश बाद उप &थत रहने का कहा गया। उसके बाद

बजे ित ाथ) व उसके अिधव *ा उप &थत नह !ं रहे और उनके ितपर!ण का अिधकार
, 19.06.2026
समा 2 कया गया। करण शेष सा 4य अि 5म काय ,वाह! हेतु दनांक को िनयत

कया गया।
19.06.2026
इसके बाद दनांक को यह आवेदन ितपर!ण का अिधकार बहाल करने बाबत्

&तुत कया गया। उस दन ितपर!ण का कोई यास नह !ं कया । अवलोकन पर दिश ,त

है क ित ाथ) आयशा को 9य *गत उप &थित हेतु इस .यायालय :ारा िनद 'िशत कया
,
गया था ले कन वह इसका कोई पालन नह !ं कर रह ! है और माननीय उ <च .यायालय म
,
समान ितिथ िनयत होने का आधार लेकर इस .यायालय म  उप &थत नह !ं हो रह ! है जब क

माननीय उ <च .यायालय :ारा अपनी सम &त काय ,वाह! म  उप &थत होने हेतु शाम का समय
, 11:30
दया गया था जब क इस .यायालय म  उप &थत होने तथा कथन के िलये सुबह बजे
,
का समय दया गया था वह आ सकती थी।

इसके अलावा ित ाथ) ने माननीय उ <च .यायालय खंडपीठ इ .दौर म  भी इसी संबंध म
4165/2026 ,
व वध यािचका Bं. &तुत क D है जो इस .यायालय को नह !ं बताई है। अतः
,
उसने इस .यायालय के सामने सह ! त Fय नह !ं रखे ह G जस सहायता के बारे म  माननीय
,
उ <च .यायालय म  आवेदन &तुत कर दया है उसी सहायता के िलये इस .यायालय म  भी

आवेदन &तुत कया है जो विधपूण, नह !ं है और माननीय उ <च .यायालय म  आवेदन

&तुत करने के उपरांत इस .यायालय से उसी संबंध म  सुनवाई कराना .याियक विध

िस Iांत और व JरKता के अंतग ,त विधपूण, नह !ं है। अतः आवेदन िनर &त कया जाता है।
24.08.2026
करण ाथ) पर ितपर!ण हेतु अ .य करण म  िनयत दनांक को &तुत
‘’
हो।
7. On bare reading of the above mentioned finding, I found that such
finding given by the trial Court, neither can be considered in not relating in
consonance with the provisions of law, nor can be considered perverse or
illegal or without jurisdiction and no interference is required to be called for.
Though the Court is of the opinion that such endevour of the petitioner/s to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24273
7 MP-4806-2026
delay the proceeding of the trial under one pretext or another, is required to

be viewed seriously by imposing heavy cost. Considering the fact that the
petitioner no. 1 is a lady and not getting any substantial amount towards
maintaining herself, the Court is with a of that in future, the petitioner/s will
not unnecessarily make any attempt to delay the proceeding of the trial under
one pretext or another and will proceed with the proceeding. The Court is not
imposing any cost and considering the merits of the matter, the present
petition is required to be dismissed
8. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as no interference is
called for.
CC as per rules.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
amol

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:20:44