Advocates:
['ADV VIVEK ANGELO RODRIGUES', '', 'ADV NAIK VITHAL SHIVANAND', 'ADV JOYCE M RODRIGUES', 'ADV DANIEL ANDRADE']

1

wpcr no.192 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.192 OF 2018

1.

Smt. Theresa D'Souza,

Aged 70 years, unmarried,

Indian National, resident of

House No.1/1, Sautavaddo,

Assgao-Bardez, Goa.

2.

Smt. Thelma D'Souza,

married, Indian National,

Aged 73 years, resident of

House No.5, Modlavado,

Villa Oceanic Arambo,

Pernem Goa.

…. Petitioners

V/s

Mr. Norman W. Albuquerque,

Major in age, Resident of

House No.846/2018, Church

Street, Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa.

.… Respondent

Shri Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Shri Daniel Andrade, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram:- NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

Reserved on : 22^nd January, 2019

Pronounced on : 29^th January, 2019

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of

the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel

appearing for the respondent waives service.

2.

This petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under

2

wpcr no.192 of 2018

Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the order

dated 30/04/2018 passed by the Court of Sessions, North Goa,

Panaji in the Criminal Appeal No.135/2017 pursuant to which the

learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the application

filed by the respondent under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code for

the production of additional documents.

3.

Heard Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the

petitioners who contended that the respondent had moved an

application before the District Court to the effect that the

respondent and the petitioners belonged to two different families

and the respondent was not a member of the undivided joint

family at any point of time. The respondent had not relied upon

and produced the earlier deposition of the petitioners in the

divorce case wherein she had admitted that he was not a

member of their family. The petitioners had filed a criminal case

against him and examined the husband of the petitioner no.2

who in his cross-examination had admitted that the petitioner

no.1 was not related to him by blood and there was no domestic

relationship with him. These documents were realised after

going through the impugned judgment and order and therefore,

3

wpcr no.192 of 2018

he was seeking to rely on these documents. Shri V. Rodrigues,

learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that this

application moved on behalf of the respondent was signed by

him in person and there was no affidavit in support thereof.

4.

Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the petitioners

referred to the two statements which were dated 18/02/2008

and 09/12/2015 sought to be produced at the respondent's

instance. The Domestic Violence Act proceedings at the

petitioners' instance had culminated in an order dated

21/01/2017. The petitioners had filed their reply to the

application dated 14/02/2018 filed by the respondent

vehemently opposing the same that it was arbitrary, illegal and

misconceived in law. The application was filed under the

provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas the

proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were enforceable

under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any event, the

documents sought to be produced by the respondent bore no

relevance to the matter, was made at a belated stage only to

delay the proceedings and to harass the petitioners, not made

with due diligence and therefore had pressed for the dismissal of

the application. The learned Sessions Judge however, on hearing

4

wpcr no.192 of 2018

the arguments and the relevant proceedings of