ASHISH NAYYAR Vs. SHELLY NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9.1.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him for deleting certain parts of the affidavit filed by the respondent in her evidence as examination - in - chief or for directing her to file a fresh affidavit, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(i)(ia) and 13(i)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, in which the petitioner led his evidence. In response to the evidence led by the petitioner, the respondent filed her affidavit for her examination-in-chief. It is some of the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent in her examination-inchief, which were objected to by the petitioner by filing the application, which was dismissed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the affidavit filed by the petitioner was quite lengthy as it contained number of allegations against the respondent and she had merely countered the facts stated by the petitioner in his affidavit in evidence in detail. In addition to that, certain facts, which she wanted to narrate, were stated. The same cannot be said to be beyond pleadings as primarily the divorce was sought by the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty and conversion of religion by the respondent. As the pleadings of the petitioner himself were quite lengthy, the respondent had to reply the same back in some detail. Whatever she had stated in her affidavit, the contents thereof can be put to her in her cross- examination and the petitioner is always at liberty to demolish the same. Even if according to the petitioner, some of the facts stated in the affidavit of evidence go beyond pleadings, the evidentiary value thereof will be considered by the court at the time of final decision of the case in accordance with law. Reliance was placed upon Cesar Rego Fernandes and others v. Angela Ninette Oliveira Fernandes and others, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 463 (Bombay).