BANARSI LAL Vs. NEELUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated December 17, 1969 of Jagjit Singh J. whereby he dismissed F.A.O. No. 30 of 1969 as withdrawn. This dismissal was in pursuance of a statement made by the appellant undertaking not to press the said F.A.O. which should be deemed to have been withdrawn if the respondent took an oath detailed later. The respondent took the oath as offered by the appellant and Jagjit Singh J. dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

(2.) The respondent was granted a decree for judicial separation on January 31, 1969, by Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, Delhi, against the appellant. F.A.O. No. 30 of 1969 was filed in this Court by the appellant and was heard by Jagjit Singh. J. On December 17, 1969, the appellant made a statement that if the respondent would state in the Court by taking an oath in the name of the .parties' son, Megh Kumar alias Vishal, that she had not met or talked to the appellant after June 30, 1967 on the occasions to be mentioned by him, then he would not press his appeal and the same shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The occasions were detailed in the appellant's statement. This offer was accepted by the respondent and she stated before Jagjit Singh J. after taking an oath in the name of aforesaid Megh Kumar alias Vishal that she never met or talked to the appellant after June 30, 1967 on any of the occasions mentioned in the appellant's statement. The oath and the statement made by the respondent were recorded by the learned Judge. Thereafter, it is stated in the judgment that the appellant, in accordance with his statement, did not want to press his appeal which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) Mr. Lekhi, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the oath taken by the respondent was violative of section 8 of the Oaths Act, 1873, inasmuch as it affected a third person, namely, the son of the parties. Section 8 of this Act is in these terms :-