Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 720 (PAT)

Bibhuti Kumar v. Rani Kumari

2019-05-03

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2019
ORDER : Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing part of the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Matrimonial Case No. 368 of 2014 by which he has declined to issue dasti summonses to the doctors of Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, New Delhi (for short 'IHBAS') for their examination. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent was married to him on 06.06.2010. She is suffering from mental disorder. She was treated in the IHBAS, New Delhi by the doctors, who opined that the respondent is suffering from mental disease. In spite of treatment being provided to her, there is no improvement in her condition. Seeing no other option, he filed Matrimonial Case No. 368 of 2014 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder of the respondent. In the said case, on his behalf some medical prescriptions relating to her treatment by the doctor on different dates in the IHBAS, New Delhi was submitted and a petition was filed on 18.09.2018 to prove the same. A rejoinder to the petition dated 18.09.2018 was filed by the respondent on 04.10.2018. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger took the medical prescriptions on record and marked them as Ext. 1, 1/a to Ext. 1/i with objection. 5. However, the prayer of the petitioner to issue summonses to the doctors, who examined the respondent on different dates, has been declined vide order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2018, the petitioner has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the prescriptions issued by the doctor of IHBAS, New Delhi has been taken on record with objection, it was incumbent upon the court to have issued summonses to the doctor, who had examined the respondent on different dates. His contention is that while declining the prayer of the petitioner vide impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger has grossly erred in law. 8. His contention is that while declining the prayer of the petitioner vide impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger has grossly erred in law. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, I find that the petitioner has not brought on record the petition dated 18.09.2018 filed by him in the court below. In the instant application also he has not mentioned the name of the doctors, whom he wants to be summoned. From the impugned order also, it does not reflect that the petitioner had named any doctor whom he wanted to examine in the suit. 9. Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') mandates the court to issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required if an application is made in this regard. However, there is an exception to the general rule. Where the court would find that the prayer for issuance of summonses has been made without any bona fide reason or the prayer is vexatious or has been made to prolong the litigation, it will refuse to issue summonses. 10. In the instant case, in view of the vagueness in the application of the petitioner dated 18.09.2018, if the prayer of the petitioner to issue summonses to the doctors has been refused, no illegality can be found in the order as the summonses so issued should be directed to the persons concerned. It cannot be directed to any doctor of IHBAS, who may have treated the respondent in past. 11. That apart, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 12. In view of the said provisions, the Family Court is competent to receive documents even if they are not formally proved by any witness. In the instant case, the prescriptions have already been taken on record. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I see no illegality in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger. 14. The application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.