Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
S.Prabha, Minor S.Prithvika – Appellant
Versus
Sathish Rakkiappan – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.23649 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.No.16130 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.P.Mahalakshmi
For the Respondents: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
The court allows reopening of evidence under Section 311 CrPC when necessary to ensure justice, particularly in cases involving alleged fraudulent documents.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge the trial court's dismissal of an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to reopen evidence to refute documents presented by the respondent. The court identified the need to allow the petitioners an opportunity to present this evidence due to allegations of fraudulent documents. The court overturned the trial court order and directed the expeditious continuation of the main case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reopening of evidence in maintenance case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's decision on evidence admission and appeal resolution (Para 4) |
ORDER
Challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of CrPC to reopen her evidence to disprove certain documents filed by her husband, the present petition has been filed
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Maintenance Case, her husband has produced certain salary certificates which is not real and only to disprove the documents, she has to adduce her evidence. In this regard, she has filed the application to re-open her evidence under Section 311 of CrPC, however, the same was rejected. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the order of the Trial Court. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposed the petition and sought for dismissal of this petition.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
4. Considering the nature of the allegations against the husband and the petitioner seeks an opportunity to disprove certain documents that is alleged to have been obtained fraudulently, this Court in order to give on more opportunity is inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is permitted to adduce evidence on a specific day fixed by the Trial Court and the evidence of the petitioner shall be completed on the same day. The respondent shall cross examine the PW1 on the new additional documents within a maximum period of two days. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall dispose of the main case on merits expeditiously.
