The absence of a specific provision in the law for producing additional examination in chief led to the rejection of the petitioner's request for an additional affidavit.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-original complainant in which the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 23rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vadodara below application Exh.17 submitted by the petitioner as well as the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Revision Application No.125 of 2019.

2. Heard the petitioner Ms.Archana Amit Shah and respondent no.2 Mr.Amit Hasmukhbhai Shah in person and learned APP for respondent-state.

3. The petitioner has mainly submitted that the petitioner is the wife of respondent no.2. She has preferred application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (`Domestic Violence Act’ for short) before the concerned Magistrate Court. It is submitted that before preparing affidavit for examination-inchief, the present petitioner had stated all the relevant facts to her advocate and handed over all the original documents to him. Thereafter, the said advocate had prepared affidavit of examination-in-chief of the petitioner and the petitioner was called to verify the details. The petitioner visited the office of the concerned advocate to verify the affidavit and it was found that certain relevant and material information is not stated by the advocate while preparing the said affidavit. The petitioner, therefore, informed her advocate accordingly. The concerned advocate, thereafter, assured that he will do the needful and he will prepare fresh affidavit of examination in chief of the petitioner. The petitioner was, thereafter, called on the date of hearing before the Court and the said advocate submitted affidavit for examination in chief of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that though she has pointed out to her advocate necessary details, they were not incorporated in the affidavit for examination in chief of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed application and produced additional affidavit for examination in chief before the concerned Magistrate Court. However, the concerned Magistrate passed the impugned order and rejected the said additional affidavit for examination-in-chief on the ground that there is no provision for filing additional affidavit. It is also observed that the petitioner is intentionally delaying the matter.

4. At this stage, it is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter challenged the said order by filing Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019, rejected the said application and therefore the present petition is filed.

5. The petitioner submitted that though the petitioner supplied all the details to her advocate, her advocate did not incorporate the material/relevant facts in the affidavit for examination in chief and therefore the petitioner submitted additional affidavit. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the present respondents if the additional affidavit for examination in chief is accepted by the concerned Magistrate Court. The respondents can cross-examine the petitioner on additional affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not trying to delay the proceedings as observed by the concerned Magistrate Court. The petitioner, therefore, urged that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and thereby the petitioner be permitted to produce the additional affidavit for examination in chief.

6. On the other hand, respondent no.2 has opposed this petition.

The respondent no.2 has referred the affidavit filed by him, copy of which is placed on record at page no.36. It is mainly contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. Therefore, only on that ground, the present petition may not be entertained. The respondent no.2 has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the ca