AMANPREET KAUR Vs. KANWALVIR SINGH KANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband-respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petition was filed in the year 2015 and is currently at the stage of final arguments. The present revision petition has been directed against order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the trial Court on an application dated 03.04.2019 filed by the wife-petitioner for sending a particular 'compact disk' to CFSL for comparison with File No. 140330-001 in compact disk on record as Ex. R-l/53.

(2.) Relevant undisputed facts are that after the petitioner left the matrimonial home (as alleged by respondent No. 1) a meeting took place between the parties in the presence of their relatives. The date on which it took place is disputed. The petitioner asserts that the same took place on 30.03.2014 whereas the respondent says that the date was 09.04.2014. Both, however, admit recording the same. In a complaint made to the police at Patiala by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was asked to get his statement recorded. The statement was recorded on 28.07.2014 wherein respondent No. 1 has inter alia stated that the compromise meeting took place on 09.04.2014 and the same was recorded by him. The recording contained in a compact disk was handed over along with the statement. During the course of evidence of respondent No. 1, the file pertaining to the inquiry conducted by the Patiala police was summoned. The police witness got his statement recorded as PW-3 on 27.03.2018. He also produced the compact disk handed over by respondent No. 1 at the time of recording of statement dated 28.07.2014. The said compact disk was exhibited but by orders of even date the same was de-exhibited with liberty to the petitioner to summon the same when her evidence was recorded. During the course of recording of her evidence, the petitioner placed on record Ex. R-1/53 a compact disk containing recordings of the compromise meeting referred to hereinabove. Thereafter, the file pertaining to the police inquiry conducted by the Patiala police was summoned and was produced by an official who deposed as RW-8 on 03.04.2019. The compact disk was also brought by him but somehow the same was not exhibited. Thus, application dated 03.04.2019 was filed for getting the said compact disk examined by the CFSL for comparison with File No. 140330-001 recorded in the compact disk on record as Ex. R-1/53.

(3.) The petitioner has submitted that during the course of his evidence, respondent No. 1 has brought on record only statement dated 28.07.2014 recorded before the Patiala police as Ex. P-5/H, however, the compact disk handed over to the police at that time was not brought on record. During the course of his cross-examination, he denied the fact that the said compact disk had been recorded by him instead, he stated that the same had been recorded by Mr. Gurratanpal Singh, maternal uncle of the petitioner and that he had handed it over to him. He has also stated that the compromise meeting took place on 09.04.2014 and Sh. Gurratanpal Singh has since expired. Said Sh. Gurratanpal Singh has passed away on a date between 30.03.2014 and 09.04.2014 and, thus, the statement of respondent No. 1 is proved to be wrong. The compact disk could not have been recorded by Sh. Gurratanpal Singh. It was in fact recorded by respondent No. 1 and this fact can be proved by a comparison with the recording contained in Ex. R-l/53. The comparison would also establish that respondent No. 1 has deposed falsely on oath. The trial Court has, thus, erred in rejecting her application. Once, liberty was given to the petitioner to produce the compact disk on record during the course of her evidence, the trial Court was in error in not taking the same on record and thereafter rejecting her application on the ground that material, which is not on record cannot be sent for comparison.