SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 2274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
Rahul Ganpat Shedge – Petitioner
Versus
Sheetal Rahul Shedge – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10839 of 2017
Decided On : 06-10-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mangal Bhandari, i/by Mr. Mangesh Deshmukh, Advocates.

The welfare of the child is of paramount importance in matrimonial proceedings, and the court has a duty to protect the best interest of the child, ensuring that children are not treated as pawns in their parents' legal battles.

Headnote:

Child Witness - Matrimonial Dispute - Not allowing child witness to testify - [Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 17] - [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 118, 119] - The court discussed the emotional trauma and psychological impact on a child witness, the best interest of the child, and the discretion of the court in protecting the welfare of the child. The court emphasized that children should not be treated as pawns in the matrimonial battle of their parents and that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought permission to record the evidence of his daughter, who was a witness to the matrimonial life of the petitioner and respondent. The trial court rejected the application on the grounds that the child may have been tutored or influenced.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that calling a child witness to testify about incidents that occurred when she was very young would inflict mental trauma on the child. The court emphasized the emotional and psychological impact on the child and the best interest of the child in protecting her welfare.

Issues: The issue revolved around the admissibility of the child witness's testimony in a matrimonial dispute and the best interest of the child in such proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance and should be protected by the court. It emphasized that children should not be treated as pawns in the parents' legal battles and that the emotional trauma and long-term effects on the child should be considered.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order passed by the trial court did not suffer from any illegality and was in the best interest of the child.

JUDGMENT :

Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself.

2. This Petition is directed against the order dated 8th March 2017 passed by the Extra Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, below Exhibit-76 in Marriage Petition No. 569 of 2012, thereby rejecting the Petitioner's application seeking permission to record the evidence of his daughter as a 'witness' in the said case.

3. It is really an unfortunate situation that in the matrimonial dispute between the parents, the daughter is called upon to give evidence in the case by her own father against her mother. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, Petitioner has filed this Petition for divorce against Respondent on the ground of cruelty and their daughter Shruti, who is at present 8 years of age, is a witness to the matrimonial life of Petitioner and Respondent and her evidence is essential to prove the various instances of cruelty inflicted by the Respondent on the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent-wife has also attempted to commit suicide and the daughter being very much present at the relevant time, she is an important "piece" of evidence for the Petitioner and, therefore, her evidence should not be shut at the threshold itself. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Trial Court has, however, rejected the application of the Petitioner to summon her as a 'witness', only on the ground that daughter Shruti being in the custody of the Petitioner since last about three years, there is every possibility of she being tutored or influenced and, hence, her evidence cannot be of much use.

4. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, only after her evidence is recorded, one can decide whether she was tutored or influenced and if it was found to be so, then, her evidence can be discarded, but it would not be proper at this stage not to allow her to be examined at all and thereby deprive the Petitioner from adducing the crucial piece of evidence to prove his case. It is urged that if her evidence is not allowed to be lead, then, how the Petitioner can prove the instances of cruelty? According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, his daughter is sufficiently matured as she is of the age of 7 years. Hence, the Trial Court should have, at-least, interviewed her to ascertain whether she has attained sufficient maturity and understanding to give evidence in the Court. According to him, her competency as a 'witness' should have been ascertained, but the Trial Court has not done that and only on the ground that she may be tutored, rejected the Petitioner's application for recording of her evidence.

5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the birth-date of the child Shruti, as given in the Petition for Divorce, is "11th March 2009". Therefore, when this Application was filed before the Trial Court on 1st March 2017, she has hardly 7 to 8 years of age. The 'Petition for Divorce' is filed before the Trial Court in the year 2012 and, therefore, it follows that the alleged incidents of the conduct of the Respondent-mother had taken place prior to 2012; which indicates that, at that time, Shruti was hardly of the age of 2 to 3 years.

6. Needless to state, that calling such a child of 7 to 8 years of age to give evidence in respect of the incidents that might have occurred when she was of 2 to 3 years of age, is as good as inflicting a mental trauma on the child. As a matter of fact, calling upon the child to give evidence in favour of one parent and which may prove to be against another parent is as good as subjecting the child to unwanted trauma and predicament. The law is well settled that children should not be treated as a pawn on the chess board of the matrimonial battle of their parents. It may be a legal battle for the parents, but for the child, it is an emotional exercise. Even in respect of the custody and access matters of the children, it is recognized that chil



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top