Proper procedure according to the rules of natural justice must be followed in family court proceedings, including the duty to advise parties and ensure the opportunity for cross-examination.

JUDGMENT

These two matters being F.A. No. 06 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. P. No. 92 of 2010 are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved. In view of the order which we intend to pass, we are not going into the factual aspect of the matter. The Family Court vide the impugned order in the Crl. Rev. Pet. rejected the claim of the wife for grant of maintenance but granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the minor son. The Family Court by the impugned order in the matrimonial appeal granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband.

2. Admittedly, the parties were married to each other and one child was born out of this wedlock. Disputes arose between the parties and the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor child.

3. This petition was filed on 24.06.2008 and was listed on 06.01.2009 on which date the learned Judge, Family Court passed an order that another case was also pending between the parties relating to restitution of conjugal rights and which case was fixed for evidence on 10.02.2009. The learned Family Judge held that it would be convenient to dispose of both the cases by a common judgment. Hence he did not record the evidence in the criminal proceeding on that.

4. After the wife had instituted the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the husband also instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 14.07.2008. In this petition the wife appeared and filed written statement and the matter was listed on 10.02.2009 for evidence. On that day the Family Court Judge was under order of transfer and the matter was adjourned. On 5th May, 2009 in the criminal proceeding it is recorded that the petitioner is present. The OP is present along with his witnesses. They are examined. In the case being T.S. (RCR) No. 145 of 2008 it was mentioned that the petitioner is present along with his witnesses. They were examined and discharged. Thereafter, the statement of the wife was recorded on 10.09.2009. On that day the statement of the wife and her witnesses was recorded. On perusal of records of both the cases, we find that the statements are recorded in one case and photocopies of the statement were made, got signed by the parties and the Judge took them on record of the other case.

5. When two or more cases are identical or similar in nature a Judge may be justified in recording the evidence in one case and reading that in another case. However, before doing so he must clearly specify in the order that he feels that in the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence led in one case should be read in the other case. Judicial records must be proper and must reflect the true state of affairs and should be an accurate record of what has transpired in court. Without passing a judicial order justifying such action the evidence recorded in one case cannot be read in another case.

6. In proceedings under the Family Courts Act the parties do not have the benefit of being represented by any counsel. They are lay persons. They do not know how and in what manner evidence is recorded in court. Therefore, an onerous duty is casts upon the presiding officer of the Family Court as well as the counselor attached to the Family Court to properly advise the parties and inform them that in what manner evidence has to be recorded. This Court in MAT App. No. 02 of 2009 and Crl. Rev. P. No. 67 of 2008 has given certain directions which need no repetition.

7. In the present case the wife was to lead evidence only on the issue of grant of maintenance for herself and her child. In the other case being T.S. (RCR) No. 145 of 2008 the onus was on the husband to prove that the wife had deserted him. Nobody explained either to the wife or the husband that both the cases had been taken up together and that the e