Judicial discretion under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. requires cogent reasons for reopening evidence, emphasizing the need to avoid dilatory tactics in maintenance proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the husband assailing the order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C . as per Annexure-A.

2. Facts of the case are as under:

The respondent/wife has instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the petitioner/husband. Upon service of notice, the petitioner entered appearance and contested the proceedings on merits. The records disclose that both parties have adduced their respective evidence and have also been subjected to detailed cross-examination. When the matter was thereafter posted for final arguments, the petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C ., seeking permission to further cross-examine the respondent/wife. The ground urged in the said application was that certain admissions were allegedly elicited from the wife during her cross-examination in a parallel criminal case instituted under Section 498-A IPC and the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, and that such admissions required to be confronted to her in the present proceedings.

3. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the said application. While doing so, the Magistrate has carefully adverted to the stage of the proceedings and has recorded that the petitioner had already filed his written arguments. Further, even after the respondent’s counsel concluded his submissions, the Court had extended an opportunity to the petitioner to address his reply despite the availability of written arguments. In light of these factors, the learned Magistrate found no merit in reopening the evidence of the wife and accordingly rejected the application under Section

311 Cr.P.C .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. The order under challenge has also been perused in detail along with the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C .

5. On a close scrutiny of the application, particularly paragraph No.2, it becomes apparent that no cogent or specific reasons have been set out justifying the reopening of the evidence of the wife or explaining the necessity of her further cross-examination. The averments are vague and do not demonstrate any tangible connection between the evidence already recorded in the criminal case in S.C.No.5005/2016 and the issues germane to the adjudication of the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C . The application does not disclose how the alleged admissions in the other proceedings would be relevant or material for effective adjudication of the present lis.

6. Even before this Court, despite pointed queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific portion of the cross-examination in the criminal proceedings which would have a bearing on the determination of maintenance. This Court, therefore, finds that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C . is a feeble attempt on the part of the petitioner/husband to reopen the concluded stage of evidence without demonstrating any real necessity or relevance. Prima facie, it appears to be a dilatory tactic aimed at protracting the maintenance proceedings rather than a bona fide effort to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision.

7. In this background, on an overall consideration of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion judiciously and in accordance with law. The order impugned does not disclose any perversity or illegality warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.