IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu - Applicant
Versus
Rekha Bai Sahu W/o Shiv Kumar Sahu and ors. – Non-applicants
CRR No. 1044 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Criminal Revision - Opportunity to Lead Evidence - Order 8 Rule 1A, Section 151 of CPC - Order 8 Rule 1A, Section 151 of CPC, Section 125 of CrPC - [Order 8 Rule 1A, Section 151 of CPC, Section 125 of CrPC] - The court set aside the orders dismissing the application for granting an opportunity to lead evidence and to accept the documents the applicant wanted to rely upon, emphasizing the importance of procedural justice and the need to consider the nature of documents in deciding the issue.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought an opportunity to lead evidence and to produce additional documents in a maintenance case under Section 125 of CrPC. The Family Court initially granted time but later closed the right of the applicant to lead further evidence and dismissed the application for producing additional documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the actions of the Family Court to be arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the orders and directing the Family Court to provide the applicant with the opportunity to examine remaining witnesses and accept the documents he wanted to rely upon.
Issues: The issues revolved around the right of the applicant to lead further evidence and produce additional documents in the maintenance case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of procedural justice and the need to consider the nature of documents in deciding the issue, setting aside the orders and directing the Family Court to provide the applicant with the opportunity to examine remaining witnesses and accept the documents he wanted to rely upon.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed in part, and the Family Court was directed to provide the applicant with the opportunity to examine remaining witnesses and accept the documents he wanted to rely upon.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 17.08.2023, passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, C.G., whereby learned Family Court has dismissed the application submitted by applicant for granting of opportunity of leading evidence under Order 8 rule 1A read-with Section 151 of CPC.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant and non-applicant herein are husband and wife. Non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance before the Family Court. In the proceedings, applicant herein has caused appearance, submitted reply and has also examined himself as witness and the case was fixed for recording of the defence witnesses on 09.11.2022. On the said date, applicant herein appeared before the Family Court in presence of non- applicant herein/ applicant and has prayed for time for producing his rest of the witnesses. Learned Family Court considering the submission and prayer had granted time and fixed the case for recording of the remaining witnesses of non-applicant therein by fixing the date on 03.12.2022. He contended that from the order dated 09.11.2022 it is reflecting that at later point of time applicant therein i.e., wife again appeared before the Family Court and raised objection on granting time. Upon which learned Family Court without issuing notice to applicant herein has closed the right of applicant to lead further evidence and fixed the case for final arguments on 07.01.2023. He further contended that during pendency of proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant herein came to know that non-applicant wife had performed second marriage and in support of the said fact he wanted to place on record documents of customary divorce between applicant and non- applicant and further to produce evidence of second marriage of non- applicant, which application was also dismissed by impugned order dated 17.08.2023. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that if the right of lead evidence of applicant is not set aside and he is not permitted to produce additional documents, the right to defence of applicant will be adversely affected.
3. Learned counsel for non-applicant raised an objection to the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that even after granting sufficient time, applicant has not produced rest of his evidence. He contended that the evidence of applicant is already recorded by the Family Court. Submission of learned counsel for applicant that non- applicant herein has performed second marriage is not correct and is without any basis.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Perusal of order dated 09.11.2022 would show that on that date initially applicant and non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and during course of hearing non-applicant therein prayed for time which was allowed and case was further fixed for 03.12.2022 for recording of the evidence of remaining witnesses of non-applicant therein. The order- sheet would further reveal that in the post lunch session, applicant therein again appeared before the Court and has raised objection on grant of time for recording of rest of the witnesses. In absence of non- applicant therein ie., applicant, the learned Family Court has closed the right of applicant herein to examine his other witnesses which in the facts of the case appears to be arbitrary and illegal. When once the Court has considered the prayer for adjournment and while adjourning the case fixing the case for further hearing and examination of remaining witnesses on 03.12.2022, learned court below ought not to have passed the order closing the right of applicant to lead further evidence on the same day in absence of applicant, hence, the said order is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside.
6. Sofar as, the order dated 17.08.2023 is concerned, the Family Court has dismissed the application under Order 8 Rule 1A read-with Section 151 of CPC. In the said ap
AI
The importance of procedural justice and the need to consider the nature of documents in deciding the issue.
The court emphasized the importance of utilizing the opportunities already granted and directed that arguments shall be heard on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Family Court on the next date ....
The court established that procedural rules should not prevent the admission of evidence necessary for achieving substantial justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.