Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2081
MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)
SINGLE BENCH
R. Tharani, J.
KAVITHA — Appellant
Vs.
RAMAMOORTHY — Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 2333 and 2334 of 2019 and C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 12270 and 12272 of 2019
Decided on : 16-03-2020
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr.S.Jayakumar, for the Appellant; Mr.N.Rahamadhullah, for the Respondent
The court held that a necessary document, such as a passport, should be marked through the witness, and the trial should be reopened to allow for this.
Headnote:
Recall of Witness and Reopening of Trial - Civil Procedure Code, Section 151 - The court referred to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which grants the court inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The court used this provision to direct the trial court to allow the petitioner to recall herself and mark the passport of the husband.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition for divorce and the wife filed a petition to recall a witness and reopen the trial. The wife claimed that the husband's passport, which is a necessary document, was in her possession. The trial court dismissed the petitions, but the petitioner appealed. The petitioner argued that the passport should be marked through the witness. The respondent argued that the wife had already admitted that the husband was in Singapore and there was no need to prove it through the passport. The court directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to recall herself and mark the passport through her, thus reopening the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both parties and found that the passport was a necessary document. It directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to recall herself and mark the passport through her, thus reopening the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the passport, being a necessary document, should be marked through the witness, and thus the trial should be reopened.
Result: The civil revision petitions are disposed of with the direction to allow the petitioner to recall herself and mark the passport of the husband. No costs are awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2018 dated 05.11.2019, on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.
3. The petitioner herein is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The husband has filed a petition for divorce. In that case, the wife has filed a petition in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 to recall P.W.1 and to reopen the trial.
4. Brief substance of the affidavits in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 is as follows: The main O.P. Is pending for arguments. The case of the husband is that the husband was working in Singapore and from the date of marriage till 2012, he went to Singapore several times and P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that his passport was with the wife. When the wife searched the house, she found the passport. To mark the passport, the trial has to be reopened and the evidence of P.W.1 has to be recalled.
5. The brief substance of the counter in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 is as follows: The wife has admitted that the husband was in Singapore. She has also admitted in H.M.O.P.No.75 of 2017 that the husband was at Singapore and there is no necessity to prove the aforesaid facts by way of passport. If the passport is necessary, it can be marked through the wife. No body can be compelled to give evidence against themselves. The reason for marking the passport is not elicited. Only to fill up the lacunae in the case, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.
6. After considering both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petitions. Against which, the petitioner has filed the revision petitions.
7. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the husband filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2018. The wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.75 of 2017 and both the petitions are pending before the Family Court, Sivagangai. When the husband was examined as P.W.1, he deposed that his passport was in the hands of his wife. After searching in the house, the wife traced out the passport and the passport is a necessary document and it should be marked through P.W.1. The case has to be reopened and P.W.1 has to be recalled for marking the passport.
8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that already the wife filed Transfer civil miscellaneous petition to transfer both the cases and that petitions were rejected. After the entire evidence was over and after the case was four times adjourned for arguments, the petitioner has filed this petition just to drag on the case. It is stated that the allegation against the wife is an illegal intimacy with a third person. The person who is in illegal intimacy with the wife was examined as P.W.2 and he has admitted in his evidence that he was having illegal intimacy with the wife of the respondent and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2 and she has also deposed that she has lodged a complaint against her husband, due to illegal intimacy with the revision petitioner. R.W.2, the daughter of the revision petitioner deposed that there was some problem between her father and mother due to one Muthukumar.
9. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that P.W.1 and 2 are friends of the respondent/husband. Only on his instigation, they deposed against her. The said Muthukumar referred by her daughter, is the brother of the revision petitioner and he is a third person and not P.W.2.
10. On the side of petitioner, it is further stated that earlier the respondent/husband has filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2013 and there was no such allegations at that time. Later the husband has withdrawn the petition.
11. On the side of the respondent, it is further stated that the respondent/husband has already withdrawn the earlier petition. After the filing of the earlier divorce petition, there was a family Panchayat, and due to the result of which the husband withdraw the earlier petition but even after that the a
