BHAVNABEN MULUBHAI JALU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the following prayers:

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, as stated in the petition, are such that the petitioner got married with respondent no.2; that the petitioner was deserted by respondent no.2 and at present petitioner is residing at her parental home; the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance; that the respondent no.2 appeared in the mater and filed his written statement/objection to the said application for maintenance vide Exh.9; that the petitioner submitted her examination-in-chief and she was cross-examined; the respondent no.2 did not step into the witness box and has filed pursis vide Exh.51, whereby it was declared that he does not want to give any evidence in the matter; the petitioner examined certain witnesses in support of her case and filed certain applications for production of documents etc., which came to be allowed; the petitioner filed application vide Exh.54 to produce documentary evidence before the court below whereby the petitioner has sought permission to produce divorce deed executed by respondent no.2 with one Devkuben Jayveerbhai Vala, which was executed on 18/7/2016 as it had come to light that during the subsistence of marriage of the respondent no.2 with the petitioner, the respondent no.2 got married with other lady and subsequently got divorce with that lady; the said divorce deed was duly notarized before the notary and therefore, the petitioner has applied vide Exh.56 for production and examination of the notary, which application was duly allowed by the court below; the said notary viz. Harjivanbhai M Vadodariya came to be examined vide Exh.59 and he produced documents Exhs.60 and 61; that thereafter the petitioner filed application Exh.62 inter alia requesting the court below to give exhibit to the said document and by the impugned order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan has given tentative exhibit by observing that the same is exhibited subject to proof and hence this petition is filed as the Court has not adjudicated the issue whether this document can be exhibited or not and has, deferred the issue of proof of the said document, which is impermissible.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Purohit for the applicant, learned APP for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Jasani for the respondent no.2.