RAMESHBHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL Vs. RITABEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is a husband, whereas respondent No.1 is wife. Applicant has challenged an order dated 12.09.2014 by the Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 562/2011 below exhibit 156 preferred by respondent wife.

(2.) BY such impugned order, which is endorsed during the deposition of one witness, the Family Court has dis -allowed a question to be answered by the witness, when such question was put to the witness by the advocate for the husband. The witness namely Jayprakash Gopal, who is owner of one Scada System and Technical Services, was called as a witness by the present applicant - husband to prove that respondent No.2 wife is serving in his firm. On perusal of such deposition, it becomes clear that initially witness summons was issued against him to disclose the relevant information regarding his employee Ritaben i.e. respondent herein who is applicant before the trial Court. During his examination in chief the witness has categorically stated that no lady namely Ritaben is serving in his firm. Name of Ritaben is her maiden name in such reference. On his denial about the services of Ritaben with him, the applicant herein has shown him a video record which was played on laptop before the Court. Copy of such CD is also placed on record in such revision. After perusal of such video if we scrutinize evidence of such witness it becomes clear that he is trying to avoid to identify said Ritaben in such recording, when he says that he cannot confirm that lady shown in such recording, which is taken in his office, is Ritaben only. In view of such attitude of the witness, not to identify the person, if at all he was knowing such person i.e. respondent No.2 herein when she was found in his office either as a receptionist or as an accountant and talking with a person who has taken such video; if we peruse the entire evidence, prima facie it becomes clear that because of such attitude not to reply the questions by the advocate of the applicant, the Court was obliged to ask him certain questions which was recorded in the form of question and answer. Thereafter when advocate for the applicant herein has asked him to produce books of accounts to confirm that no payment was made in the name of Ritaben all of a sudden trial Court has intervened in such question recording that such question is irrelevant and, ultimately, after recording the submissions by the applicant herein regarding irrelevancy of such question, the trial Court has endorsed its order in deposition itself that question is dis -allowed. For such decision the trial Court has mainly relied upon the application for witness summons and Section 5 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) IT is true that in an application for witness summons and in witness summons itself, demand is only with reference to service of Ritaben and not the entire record. However, if we peruse such application which is at Annexure K (page 64) it becomes clear that while applying for witness summons of two companies; (1) Scada System to be proved the income of the wife. (2)M/s. Parekh Traders to prove the income of the father of the wife, in paragraph of details of such evidence while disclosing all other details, in addition, it is specifically stated that all other notes and record to prove the requisite information should be brought to the Court.