P K JAIN Vs. JYOTI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 9th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the affidavit of one of the witness filed on record was not considered and the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the wife (respondent herein) filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (a) and (d) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion on the part of the petitioner husband. The allegations of desertion and cruelty were denied by the husband (petitioner herein) and following issues were framed:

(3.) After framing of issues, the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence and the petitioner closed her evidence on 27th March 2006. Thereafter, the respondent started leading evidence and after examination of four witnesses, he filed an application under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC for bringing on record certain documents pertaining to a website and photographs of one Rajender Sirkae alleging therein that the petitioner had learnt later on that the respondent (wife) had declared herself a divorcee and got engaged with Mr. Rajender Sirkae. This application for brining additional documents on record was dismissed by the trial court on 28th April 2006. This order was not challenged before higher Court. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of written statement which was dismissed as withdrawn on 29th April 2006. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 14 Rule 4 and 5 CPC for framing additional issues which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 7th November 2007. The petitioner had filed a list of 9 more witnesses, which was objected to by the counsel for respondent on the ground of witnesses being irrelevant. The trial court in order to consider the relevancy of these witnesses, asked the petitioner husband to explain the relevancy of their evidence. Counsel for the petitioner sought time to satisfy the Court as to how the witnesses named by him were relevant. Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner filed affidavit of one Mr. Rajender Sirkae on 17th March 2008 and it is this affidavit which was not considered by the trial court and the evidence of the petitioner was closed. A copy of the affidavit is on record. The heading of the affidavit reads as under:-