Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 167 (JHR)

Umesh Sahani v. Anjali Kumari

2015-02-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Seeking quashing of order dated 15.09.2007 in Matrimonial Suit No. 167 of 2002, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. Briefly stated, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent-wife on 01.03.1992 and on 03.11.1993 the couple was blessed with a child. The petitioner encouraged his wife who was a student of B.Sc. Part-I at the time of marriage to pursue further studies and due to motivation and support of the petitioner, his wife qualified for the post of C.D.P.O. in the year, 1999. To utter shock and disbelief of the petitioner, the attitude of his wife suddenly changed after she qualified for the post of C.D.P.O. The respondent-wife started ignoring her matrimonial responsibility besides, her responsibility as mother to their daughter. When his wife left the matrimonial home without any just cause, the petitioner was compelled to file Matrimonial Suit No. 365 of 2001 which was withdrawn after his wife joined him in the matrimonial home. However, at the instance of her parents, the wife of the petitioner filed Matrimonial Suit No. 167 of 2002 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-wife asserted in her suit that she pursued her study with the support of her parents and her husband demanded Rs. five lacs from her. The petitioner filed his reply denying the allegation. Though, the petitioner was possessing certain documents which would establish the stand of the petitioner that after the marriage he supported his wife all along including, extending financial support to her but due to inadvertence those documents could not be brought on record and therefore, application dated 05.06.2007 was filed. However, the said application has been rejected on erroneous ground that the witness cannot be allowed to be reexamined so as to record his examination-in-chief again. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed denying the stand taken by the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent-wife on her own will and hard labour pursued higher studies and finally qualified for the post of C.D.P.O. The petitioner filed his evidence on affidavit on 14.01.2006 and he was cross-examined at length and thereafter, he was discharged. Other witnesses have also been examined by him thereafter. The averments in the writ petition have been denied by the respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Other witnesses have also been examined by him thereafter. The averments in the writ petition have been denied by the respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and submits that in a matrimonial dispute case strict adherence to the law of evidence is not required rather, any material which can substantiate or disprove the allegation should be permitted to be brought on record. It is further submitted that though, the application dated 05.06.2007 was for bringing certain documents on record however, the said application has been rejected on the ground that it was for reexamination of the petitioner. 6. As against the above, Ms. Pragati Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application dated 05.06.2007 is belated and it was filed with a view to delay the trial. The documents which have been sought to be brought on record were in possession of the petitioner and therefore, he could have filed those documents at the initial stage itself. It is further submitted that the Matrimonial Suit No. 365 of 2001 was withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner and it is not true that after the respondent agreed to join her matrimonial home the petitioner withdrew the said case. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is extracted below: “14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, A family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectively with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).” 9. From the impugned order dated 15.09.2007 and the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding, I find that the respondent has not denied the existence of the documents which the petitioner sought to bring on record. It is true that the application dated 05.06.2007 is filed at a belated stage however, in a matrimonial dispute all the materials which can substantiate or disprove the case of a party, should generally be permitted to be brought on record. It is true that the application dated 05.06.2007 is filed at a belated stage however, in a matrimonial dispute all the materials which can substantiate or disprove the case of a party, should generally be permitted to be brought on record. The petitioner has sought to bring on record copies of G.P.F., L.I.C. Policy, P.P.F., ICICI Tax Saving Bond, IDBI Tax Saving Bond, SBI Saving Account, Telephone Bills, Photographs etc. Since the petitioner has taken a stand that he supported his wife all along and took care of his wife and daughter, those documents are relevant and for proving those documents reexamination of petitioner is merely a formality. Even prior to insertion of Order 18 Rule 2(4) C.P.C. the Court could direct or permit a party to examine any witness at any stage. It is Court's inherent power to call for a witness at any stage. Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 . 10. In so far as, the other facts pleaded in the application dated 05.06.2007 are concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce further evidence by reexamining himself. The impugned order dated 15.09.2007 is cryptic and it does not disclose application of mind in so far as, the relevancy of the documentary evidence sought to be brought on record, is concerned. 11. In view of above, the impugned order dated 15.09.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration on the application dated 05.06.2007, afresh.