Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE V.K. Agrawal
RAM SHARAN Vs. ANSUIYA BAI On 3 November 1998
Additional Evidence : Adultery : Proof Essential for Just and Final Decision of Dispute Between Parties : Parties desire to lead additional evidence after amending their petition and reply on all grounds taken for amendment. Permission granted to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is directed against the judgment dated 23.3.1996 regarding a petition under Section 13(1)(b) of ‘the Act’ registered as Civil Suit No. 6A/1991 decided by Additional District Judge, Kanker, Distt. Bastar.
2. The appellant filed the application under Section 13(1)(b) of ‘the Act’ seeking a decree for divorce against the respondent. The grounds taken for divorce were cruelty and desertion by the respondent. Issues were framed on the said allegations of the appellant and were decided in the negative by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding as above in this appeal. He has also filed an application (IA. No. 5016/98) seeking permission for amendment in his petition for divorce and he seeks to incorporate the ground of adultery on the part of the respondent. The application is supported by an affidavit. Another application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code marked as I.A. No. 7021/1998 for adducing additional evidence has been filed. By the said application, the order dated 16.12.1997 of the JMFC, Kanker, District Bastar in Misc. Cr. Case No. 9/1991 as also statements recorded therein are sought to be filed in order to substantiate the allegations regarding adultery by the respondent. It has been submitted that the order was passed subsequently after the filing of the appeal and, therefore, could not be produced before the lower Court. It has also been submitted that the additional evidence would be essential for the just and final decision of the dispute between the parties. It has also been urged that the parties may be permitted to adduce such further evidence as they may deem fit so that the controversy between the parties may be finally set at rest.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent would also like to adduce additional evidence with regard to the grounds already taken and proposed to be taken by the appellant in support of his position. He has also submitted that the respondent should be given due opportunity to defend herself with regard to the grounds raised by way of amendment.
4. In view of the above, the petition for amendment deserves to be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. The respondent, however, shall be entitled to amend her reply. Since it has been submitted by Counsel for both the parties that they would lead additional evidence after amending their petition and reply on all the grounds taken for amendment, they shall be permitted to adduce such oral and documentary evidence as they may deem fit and the lower Court shall afford them opportunity to do so, after framing necessary issues on the fresh grounds raised by additional pleadings. Since the matter is pending since 1991, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the case.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree are set-aside. The case is remanded back to the lower Court for trial afresh, in accordance with the directions as above. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 7th December, 1998 for further proceedings in the case. Failure to do so would not entitle them to fresh notice. Cost of this appeal shall be as incurred.
Need a Court Admissible judgement copy?
Just fill the form below.