Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 221 (UTT)

Vineeta v. Satish Kumar

2023-03-14

VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT: 1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.06.2022, passed by the Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, in Matrimonial Case No. 42 of 2019, which is a divorce petition, preferred by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. By the impugned order dated 18.06.2022, the application moved by the petitioner to summon the original letter written by the respondent/husband to his employer department has been rejected. The petitioner had filed a copy of said letter on record, and sought summoning of the letter, on the premise, that the date on the copy filed was not clear, and the letter itself was not legible. 3. The impugned order shows that the reason for rejection of the application was that the court did not find the said letter to be of any relevance, to resolve the issues arising in the case. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has filed the divorce petition on the ground of adultery, alleged against the petitioner. In the letter, original whereof was sought to be summoned by moving the application in question, the respondent had not made any allegation of adultery against the petitioner-while making other allegations against her before his employer department. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said letter was relevant from the point of view of establishing the falsity of the allegation of adultery made by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife. 5. Firstly, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed by the Family Court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in excess of jurisdiction, and it is not a case of failure to exercise jurisdiction. Merely because a different view may be possible, is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court exercises only supervisory jurisdiction, and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction while dealing with orders of courts subordinate to it, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. This Court exercises only supervisory jurisdiction, and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction while dealing with orders of courts subordinate to it, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Secondly, even on merits, it appears that the observation made by the learned Family Court is correct, inasmuch, as, even if the original of the said document/ letter were to be produced before the court, the same would not have a bearing on the resolution of the issues in the suit. Since the respondent/husband has filed the divorce petition, it is for him to establish the charge of adultery against the petitioner. It is not for the petitioner to falsify the said charge. Merely because the respondent may not have made allegations of adultery while writing to his employer department against the petitioner, it does not follow that the said charge is false. This is because the employer department has no concern with the aspect, whether, or not, the petitioner has indulged in adultery. It is for the respondent to prove the said charge by leading cogent evidence before the Family Court. Just as the making of such an allegation by the respondent in his communication to his employer department before filing the divorce petition, would not strengthen his case before the court, failure on his part to make such an allegation in the communication addressed by the respondent to his employer department would not be sufficient to conclude that the charge is not made out, if there is other cogent and reliable/ admissible evidence led before the court by the respondent. As aforesaid, the said charge would have to be established by the respondent/husband by leading cogent and admissible reason before the court. 7. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this petition, the Family Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner. In my view, since this petition was pending, and this Court had permitted the petitioner to seek an adjournment of the proceedings before the Family Court, the Family Court was not justified in closing the right of the petitioner to lead her evidence. 9. In my view, since this petition was pending, and this Court had permitted the petitioner to seek an adjournment of the proceedings before the Family Court, the Family Court was not justified in closing the right of the petitioner to lead her evidence. 9. I, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the Family Court to allow the petitioner to lead her evidence, and grant her one opportunity for the said purpose. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.