GIAN SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIAN Singh petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated January 13, 1983, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he allowed the wife respondent's application under Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, for summoning the additional evidence on payment of Rs. 50/ - as costs.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are very few and simple. Paramjit Kaur respondent claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). The trial Court allowed the monthly allowance of Rs. 100/ - the respondent and Rs. 70/ - to her minor -daughter. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance awarded to them, they filed a revision against the order passed by the trial Magistrate. During the pendency of the revision, the respondents moved an application under Section 311 of the Code, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, under Ludhiana, on January 13, 1983.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is greatly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner because if the additional evidence is allowed, it would amount to filling up the lacunae by the respondents. I regret my inability to accept this contention of the learned counsel. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is of the definite view that the additional evidence is essential for establishing that the petitioner was capable of paying more maintenance allowance than what was allowed by the trial Court. Thus he has rightly exercised his power under Section 311 of the Code summoning the additional evidence. As the basic purpose is to do justice between the parties the Court has to see that no lurking doubt remains in the mind of either side in regard to the Courts holding the scales even between the adversaries. The law does not create any hindrance on the part of the Court to summon witness or document at any stage. If any authority is needed, see in this connection Rajinder Parshad v. The State of Haryana, 1977 Cr. L.T. 251 and Avtar Singh v. State, 1978 P.L.R. 562. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference.