SHIV KUMAR SAHU Vs. REKHA BAI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dtd. 17/8/2023, passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, C.G., whereby learned Family Court has dismissed the application submitted by applicant for granting of opportunity of leading evidence under Order 8 rule 1A read-with Sec. 151 of CPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant and non-applicant herein are husband and wife. Non-applicant filed an application under Sec. 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance before the Family Court. In the proceedings, applicant herein has caused appearance, submitted reply and has also examined himself as witness and the case was fixed for recording of the defence witnesses on 9/11/2022. On the said date, applicant herein appeared before the Family Court in presence of non-applicant herein/ applicant and has prayed for time for producing his rest of the witnesses. Learned Family Court considering the submission and prayer had granted time and fixed the case for recording of the remaining witnesses of non-applicant therein by fixing the date on 3/12/2022. He contended that from the order dtd. 9/11/2022 it is reflecting that at later point of time applicant therein ie., wife again appeared before the Family Court and raised objection on granting time. Upon which learned Family Court without issuing notice to applicant herein has closed the right of applicant to lead further evidence and fixed the case for final arguments on 7/1/2023. He further contended that during pendency of proceedings under Sec. 125 of CrPC, applicant herein came to know that non-applicant wife had performed second marriage and in support of the said fact he wanted to place on record documents of customary divorce between applicant and non-applicant and further to produce evidence of second marriage of non-applicant, which application was also dismissed by impugned order dtd. 17/8/2023. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that if the right of lead evidence of applicant is not set aside and he is not permitted to produce additional documents, the right to defence of applicant will be adversely affected.

(3.) Learned counsel for non-applicant raised an objection to the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that even after granting sufficient time, applicant has not produced rest of his evidence. He contended that the evidence of applicant is already recorded by the Family Court. Submission of learned counsel for applicant that non-applicant herein has performed second marriage is not correct and is without any basis.