Evidence in family proceedings must be relevant to the issues before the court; irrelevant matters should not impede the trial process.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 20/02/2021 in O.P.Nos.58/2018 and 460/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. O.P.No.58/2018, that is Ext.P1, has been filed by the respondent herein/wife seeking return of gold ornaments from the petitioner herein/husband. O.P.No.460/2018, that is Ext.P2, has been filed by the husband seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents therein who are his wife and in-laws from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or interfering with his peaceful possession of the same.

2. Both the aforesaid cases were ordered to be jointly tried.

O.P.No.58/2018 filed by the wife is seen to have been taken as the main case in which evidence has been recorded. After the close of the evidence of the respondent/wife, the matter was posted for the evidence of the petitioner/husband, who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with several documents to be brought in evidence. The contents of the affidavit was objected to on behalf of the respondent/wife on the ground that they were not confined to the facts in issue. Many of the documents produced were stated to be totally irrelevant to the matter in dispute. The family court accepting the argument, passed Ext.P5 order, the relevant portion of which reads thus - “xxx xxx xxx

2. I have gone through the proof affidavit of the respondent. I have no hesitation to hold that the proof affidavit is not confined to the facts in issue and the documents produced along with the proof affidavit include so many irrelevant documents. Hence the respondent is directed to file fresh proof affidavit confining to the facts in issue, avoiding repetitions and arguments, deleting paragraphs No.14 to 20, 23 to 33, 34, 36, 36(i) to 36(vi), 37 and 37(i) to 37(vii), 38, 39,40, 40(i) to 40(iv). 42, 43 excluding documents B2, B3, B13, B14 to B19, B20, B21 to B28, B34, B36, B38, B48, B49, B52, B54 and B55. The respondent is directed to cut short the paragraphs No.3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11 and 13. The respondent is also directed to remove the averments against the petitioner regarding adultery.”

The petitioner/husband aggrieved by the aforesaid order, challenges the same in the present proceedings.

3. Though notice has been served on the respondent/wife, there is no appearance on her behalf. Ext.P5 order has been stayed by this Court by order dated 05/03/2021. It appears that the family court has not further proceeded with the matter.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the family court grossly erred in passing Ext.P5 order. The right of the petitioner/husband to rebut the various allegations of the respondent/wife would be lost if Ext.P5 order is allowed to stand and hence needs to be interfered with.

5. We refer to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the present petition which read thus - “12. On 11-2-2021, when the case was called, Counsel for Respondent orally submitted that (i) Chief affidavit contains irrelevant documents; (ii) 55 exhibits produced are not relevant; and (iii) requested the court to direct the Respondent therein to file a fresh chief affidavit.

13. Counsel for Respondent therein objected and submitted that all documents are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and are most essential to defend and prove his case.”

Reference to paragraph 1 of the impugned order is necessary. It reads thus - “The respondent in OP. No.58/2018, which was ordered to be tried jointly with OP.No.460/2018, in which he is the petitioner, filed proof affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner in OP.No.58/2018 and the respondent in OP No.460/2018 submitted that the proof affidavit of the respondent is not confined to the facts in issue and the documents produced along with the proof affidavit includes irrelevant documents. The learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the submission of the lear