Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Tikeshwar Panda S/o Janamjay Panda – Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Panda W/o Tikeshwar Panda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. The appellant herein/husband has preferred an application for divorce on the ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage being the subject matter of Civil Suit No.22A/2021, whereas the respondent herein/wife has preferred an application for restitution of conjugal rights being Civil Suit No.9A/2020. Both the applications have been heard analogously by the Family Court and separate judgments have been passed. The Family Court has dismissed the application for divorce filed by the appellant/husband resulting into filing of FA (MAT) No.432/2024 questioning the rejection of his application seeking dissolution of marriage, whereas the application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent/wife has been granted against which the appellant/husband has preferred FA (MAT) No.17/2025 questioning the same that the respondent/wife is not entitled for decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
2. Since in both the cases, husband is the appellant and wife is the respondent, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The aforesaid
Family Courts can admit evidence, including electronic documents, without strict adherence to Evidence Act requirements when necessary for effective adjudication.
Family Courts can devise their own procedures, allowing flexibility in evidence admission, and are not strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code in matrimonial matters.
The right to privacy in matrimonial disputes is not absolute and must balance with the right to fair trial, allowing relevant evidence to be admitted even if obtained through means that raise questio....
Family Courts are not strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code and can adopt their own procedures, allowing the admission of evidence not previously filed.
The right to privacy in matrimonial cases is not absolute and must yield to the right to present relevant evidence for a fair trial.
Family Courts have discretion to admit evidence that may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, focusing on relevance to the case.
Secondary evidence – Family Court has discretion to both receive and form opinion on a document which may otherwise be inadmissible under provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
False allegations and criminal proceedings against a spouse can constitute mental cruelty, affirming grounds for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court erred in dismissing divorce application based solely on Scheduled Tribe status; potential for adjudication under the Hindu Marriage Act must be determined.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
