Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1182
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Ajijur Rahman Laskar @ Fokrul, S/o Noor Uddin Laskar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 402/2021
Decided on : 24-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr P K Roychoudhury
For the Respondent: Mr D Das, Addl. P.P., Mr S C Biswas
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial notice cannot replace the need for evidence in maintenance proceedings, and courts must assess evidence alongside judicially noticed facts.
Headnote:
Judicial Notice - Maintenance - Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 57; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482 - The court discussed the judicial notice provisions under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that while judicial notice can be taken of certain facts, it cannot substitute for evidence in maintenance proceedings, influencing the decision to uphold the lower courts' rulings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders of the trial and revisional courts that directed him to pay maintenance to the respondent, based on a previous acquittal in a criminal case where the court took judicial notice of his marriage to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both lower courts properly assessed the evidence and did not err in taking judicial notice of the previous judgment, which established the marital relationship and the obligation for maintenance.
Issues: Whether the concurrent orders of the trial and revisional courts were erroneous in taking judicial notice of a previous judgment regarding the marital status of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act does not preclude the need for evidence in maintenance proceedings, and both lower courts had sufficient basis for their decisions.
Result: The petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner-X, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), with prayer for quashing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Revision No. 50/2018, whereby the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional CJM, Hailakandi, in MR Case No. 122/2024 was affirmed and upheld.
2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr D Das, for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent-Y.
3. It is contended that vide the aforementioned cases, both the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court have passed the Judgment and Orders impugned by the petitioner, by taking judicial notice of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, in connection with Sessions Case No. 69/2015. The petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), on the ground that the respondent and her mother in their evidence in connection with Sessions Case No. 69/2015, had admitted that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and it was thus held by the learned Sessions Judge that as petitioner is married to the respondent No. 2, no offence under Sections 376/417 IPC was made out and the petitioner was acquitted from charges under Sections 376/417 IPC. Taking judicial notice of this opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, the learned trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2018, in connection with MR Case No. 12/2014, directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 2, and Rs. 2,000/- to her minor child.
4. Aggrieved by this order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition and vide order dated 22.03.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, also taking judicial notice of the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, has upheld the decision of the learned trial Court, impugned by the petitioner.
5. It is averred that Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (The Evidence Act, for short), was misconstrued by both the Courts, i.e., the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court. Judicial notice of the opinion of a Sessions Judge in a criminal case cannot be taken.
6. The petitioner has vehemently denied that he is married to the respondent No. 2, but on the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge in connection with Sessions No. 69/2015, judicial notice was taken that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to maintenance as she was the legally married wife of the petitioner, and they are blessed with a child. The petitioner has questioned the moral virtues of the respondent No. 2.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has led us through the evidence of the respondent No. 2 and her witness in connection with MR Case No. 122/2014, wherein, the PW-1, i.e., the respondent No. 2 has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not submitted any document in support of her marriage.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the respondent No. 2’s mother, who has admitted as PW-2, that the marriage between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was not socially solemnized. She did not know the exact date of their marriage and no Vakil was present during the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. In his cross-examination, PW-3, Asab Ali Sheikh, a relative of the petitioner deposed that no social marriage was solemnized between the parties and he had never witnessed the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 staying together as husband and wife.
9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr S C Biswas laid stress in his argument that the evidence of PW-
