PARVINDER SINGH Vs. SAMRINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 25.09.2014 (Annexure P3), passed by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), rejecting the application for placing on record the additional evidence filed by the petitioner-husband. The parties were married on 25.02.2002 and a female child, namely, Manhar was born on 17.08.2004. The divorce petition was filed on 12.03.2009 by the respondent-wife wherein allegations of abnormal behaviour were levelled against the petitioner-husband and that he was also getting treatment in the Psychiatric Department of the Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The ground of cruelty is also taken and the parties are in dispute regarding immigration to Canada. The petitioner-husband also joined service in India in the year 2007 before the petition was filed and they last cohabited at Mohali.

(2.) When the case was complete and fixed for arguments after the defence of the petitioner-husband had been closed on 11.08.2014, the application for additional evidence was filed on the ground that the husband is in possession of video and audio-graphic conversation between the petitioner and the respondent which had taken place after the closure of the evidence and the conversation was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and the additional evidence was not available previously and hence could not be produced. The same was opposed on the ground that it was filed to harass the respondent and to delay the proceedings. The application had been dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2014 on the ground that the relevancy of the material sought to be produced could not be demonstrated as to how it would be relevant for proper adjudication of the case.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a perusal of the conversation, contained in the file-cum-audio CD, which has been appended, would go on to show that the relationship was not that estranged and there was a dispute regarding the immigration aspect. The conversation which has been recorded is also attached in the form of a manuscript. A perusal of the same would go on to show that it took place on 08.09.2014 and there is a talk between the couple regarding how they could live together, subject to certain conditions. Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that it would be necessary for the Trial Court to examine this conversation since very serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as to his mental incapacity and if the conversation has taken place, whether the allegations levelled are justified or not.