Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 205 (PNJ)

Bhola Singh v. Amarjit Kaur

2012-02-03

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Concisely, the relevant facts, which are essential to be noticed to decide the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of application filed by Amarjit Kaur (respondent) wife of Bhola Singh (petitioner) and her minor daughter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.150/- per month to his wife and Rs.75/- per month to minor daughter, through the medium of order dated 29.10.1983. According to the prosecution that his wife Amarjit Kaur started residing in adultery with Gurjant Singh alias Janta Singh and a male child, namely, Happy Singh was born out of their wedlock. She has also filed a maintenance petition under section 125 Cr.PC against her alleged 2nd husband Gurjant Singh alias Janta Singh. As soon as, petitioner came to know about the 2nd marriage of Amarjit Kaur (respondent) with Gurjant Singh, in the meantime, he filed an application under section 127 Cr.PC for cancellation of maintenance amount, which was dismissed by the CJM, vide order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the revision petition alongwith the application (Annexure P2) to lead additional evidence under section 391 Cr.PC. The application was dismissed by the revisional Court, by way of impugned order dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure P3). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is evident from the record, that the application under section 127 Cr.PC, filed by the petitioner-husband was dismissed by the CJM, by virtue of order (Annexure P1). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the revision petition alongwith the application (Annexure P2) to lead additional evidence, in order to prove the certified copy of application under section 125 Cr.PC, filed by the respondent against Gurjant Singh alias Janta Singh. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the revision petition alongwith the application (Annexure P2) to lead additional evidence, in order to prove the certified copy of application under section 125 Cr.PC, filed by the respondent against Gurjant Singh alias Janta Singh. The main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the revisional Court to dismiss the application for leading additional evidence are that (i) the petitioner has not explained as to what precluded him from leading the same evidence before the trial Court and (ii) it will amount to fill up a lacuna in the case. Here, to me, the revisional Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. 6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the petitioner has only summoned the judicial record, in order to prove the thumb impressions of the respondent on the original petition under section 125 Cr.PC filed by her against Gurjant Singh alias Janta Singh, her alleged 2nd husband, the certified copy of which is already on the record. Therefore, to my mind, the summoning of indicated judicial record, is essential to prove the thumb impressions of the respondent on the application under section 125 Cr.PC and to decide the real controversy between the parties. Thus, the revisional Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the application under section 125 Cr.PC filed by the respondent. In this manner, the revisional Court has committed a grave illegality and material procedural irregularity, which would naturally occasion in the miscarriage of justice to the petitioner in this relevant connection. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the hearing of the main revision petition, the present petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P3) is set aside and revisional Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the manner indicated hereinabove. 8. However, this would be subject to Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid by Bhola Singh (petitioner-husband) to Amarjit Kaur (respondent-wife). The payment of costs would be a condition precedent for production of the indicated additional evidence. --------------