ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has taken exception to judgment dated 6.4.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 2022, whereby the appeal of respondent/complainant filed under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act) has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to learned trial Court for deciding afresh after affording opportunities to the parties to lead evidence for proving/disproving the birth certificate and after calling the domestic incident report. 2. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status, which they held before learned trial Court. 3. An application under Section 12 of the Act was filed by petitioner before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba against respondent, seeking protection order under Section 18, residence/accommodation allowance under Section 19, maintenance allowance under Section 20 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act. For the purpose of adjudication of instant petition, it will suffice to notice only the relevant facts. One of the allegations leveled by petitioner against respondent was that respondent had denied the paternity of the son born out of his wedlock with petitioner, which caused mental and emotional harassment and torture to the petitioner and resultantly, petitioner suffered agony and deterioration in health. Petitioner also alleged that such conduct of the respondent lowered the reputation of petitioner in the eyes of general public. On such premise, compensation was sought from respondent. 4. Respondent denied the above noted allegations. He specifically denied that any son was born to him out of his wedlock with petitioner. Respondent categorically denied himself to be the biological father of such son. 5. During the pendency of the complaint, petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking leave to produce in evidence the birth certificate of her son, issued by Registrar of Birth and Death with further prayer to summon original record regarding registration of birth of said son from the office of Registrar Birth and Death, Municipal Council Chamba. Learned trial Court rejected the application of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.9.2021. The petitioner did not assail the said order of rejection separately. 6. The complaint of the petitioner was also dismissed finally by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2021. Petitioner assailed the said judgment dated 30.11.2021 before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner did not assail the said order of rejection separately. 6. The complaint of the petitioner was also dismissed finally by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2021. Petitioner assailed the said judgment dated 30.11.2021 before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba under Section 29 of the Act. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba vide impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and has remanded the case for decision afresh to learned trial Court, as noticed above. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba has held the rejection of application of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to be wrong and illegal and in such view of the matter, directions have been issued to learned trial Court to afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence for proving/disproving the birth certificate of the son of petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is bad for two reasons, firstly that the order dated 20.9.2021, passed by learned trial Court rejecting the application of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had attained finality and secondly, the petitioner had not raised any ground in her appeal laying challenge to aforesaid order. It has further been contended that in absence of any challenge to order dated 20.9.2021 before the learned Appellate Court the setting aside of such order by learned Appellate Court amounts to exceeding of jurisdiction vested in such Court. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent supported the order having been passed in lawful exercise of jurisdiction by learned Appellate Court. 10. Petitioner had alleged domestic violence at the hands of respondent. One of the modes of alleged domestic violence was emotional abuse. The verbal emotional abuse has been explained vide explanation 1 (iii) to Section 3 of the Act as under:- “verbal and emotional abuse includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.” 11. Noticeably, the complaint contained averments and allegations with respect to emotional abuse of petitioner by respondent. The denial of paternity of petitioner’s son by respondent was stated to be a cause of such abuse. Noticeably, the complaint contained averments and allegations with respect to emotional abuse of petitioner by respondent. The denial of paternity of petitioner’s son by respondent was stated to be a cause of such abuse. It was alleged that due to such conduct of respondent, petitioner was insulted, ridiculed and humiliated. Respondent had specifically denied the paternity of master Abhinav by taking a stand to that effect in his reply also. It was in this background that the petitioner had sought leave of the Court to prove the birth certificate of her son in evidence by summoning the record of Registrar Birth and Death. Obviously, the prayer was made by invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C., as the parties had already closed their evidence. While passing the final judgment dated 30.11.2021 in complaint filed by petitioner, learned trial Court did not either delve upon the issue of alleged emotional abuse of petitioner nor returned any finding thereon. Aggrieved against such judgment, petitioner filed appeal under Section 29 of the Act. 12. Section 29 of the Act vests the Court of Sessions to hear and decide the appeal against the order made by the Magistrate under the Act. There is no embargo on appellate power of Court of Sessions. The jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal is vested in Court of Sessions, thus, will include all the powers to set right the illegality or irregularity made out in the order impugned before such Appellate Court. 13. Adverting to the facts of the case, as noticed above, learned trial Court had failed to address the issue of emotional abuse alleged by petitioner. The matter was assailed before learned Appellate Court. The jurisdiction to hear appeal would also include power to rectify the defects in order impugned in appeal. Merely because the order dated 20.9.2021, passed by learned trial Court on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not separately assailed would not preclude the aggrieved person from challenging the same while filing the appeal against final order, provided the legality of such order becomes necessary to be looked into for rectifying the defect in final judgment. Learned Appellate Court has clearly noted in impugned judgment that an argument to this effect was specifically raised on behalf of the petitioner while making submissions in appeal and was duly refuted by the other side. Learned Appellate Court has clearly noted in impugned judgment that an argument to this effect was specifically raised on behalf of the petitioner while making submissions in appeal and was duly refuted by the other side. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has decided the issue without being raised on behalf of the petitioner. To say that without raising a specific plea in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner could not raise the argument before learned Appellate court would be making the very purpose of provision of appeal otiose. The learned Appellate Court has jurisdiction to look into the legality and propriety of the order impugned before it and the same can be done, if noticed, even without raising of an issue by the appellant or the other side. The learned Appellate Court cannot shut its eyes to the glaring illegality and impropriety found in the order being scrutinized by it in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the Act. 14. Coming to the legality of order dated 20.9.2021, passed by learned trial Court on application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., it can be said without any hesitation that the same could not have been sustained on scrutiny at touch stone of settled legal principles. Section 311 Cr.P.C. vests the criminal Court with jurisdiction to allow evidence to be produced on record at any stage of the proceedings provided such evidence is found necessary for adjudication of the matter in issue. Perusal of order dated 20.9.2021, passed by learned trial Court reveals that such consideration was totally missing therefrom. Learned trial Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner for additional evidence merely on the ground that it was delayed and the son of the petitioner was not a party to the litigation. Learned trial Court has completely ignored that it had to decide the issue of alleged emotional abuse of petitioner and thus the evidence sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner was necessary for imparting complete justice to the parties. 15. In light of above discussions, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 6.4.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 2022 is affirmed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.