Full Text
Translation output
/ HIGH COURT OF DELHI . CM(M) 987/2016 HARSH YADAV Petitioner
Through Mr.Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Shashank Goswami, Advocates.
Through Mr.Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Shashank Goswami, Advocates.
VERSUS
MANJU YADAV Respondent
Through Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate.
Through Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate.
CM(M) 136/2017
MANJU YADAV Petitioner
Through Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate.
MANJU YADAV Petitioner
Through Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
HARSH YADAV Respondent
Through Mr.Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Shashank Goswami, Advocates.
Through Mr.Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Shashank Goswami, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
03.02.2017 C.M.No.35977/2016 (exemption) in CM(M) 987/2016
C.M. No.4394/2017 (exemption) in CM(M) 136/2017
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.
03.02.2017 C.M.No.35977/2016 (exemption) in CM(M) 987/2016
C.M. No.4394/2017 (exemption) in CM(M) 136/2017
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.
CM(M) 987/2016 & C.M. No.3596/2016
CM(M) 136/2017
Petitioner Harsh Yadav is aggrieved by an order dated
2017:DHC:8830 11.5.2016. His submission is that the learned Family Court Judge vide an earlier order dated 07.10.2015 had permitted three of his documents to be brought on record. The first two documents which were permitted to be brought on record were the two FIRs i.e. FIR
No.535/2013 registered under Sections 306/34/498A of the IPC and
FIR No.673/2014 registered under Section 420/120 B of the IPC. In both the FIRs Prem Kumar was an accused; he is alleged to be a relation/friend of the respondent wife. The third document which,has been, permitted to be brought on record was a prescription issued by
Dr.Sushila Kuhar ofManushree Maternity and Surgery Centre. These documents had been allowed to be taken on record by the Trial Court vide order dated 07.10.2015. Vide subsequent order dated 11.5.2016
(now impugned), the learned Family Judge has refused the prayer made by the petitioner-husband to summon the witnesses to prove the aforenoted documents. This is the grievance of the petitioner- husband.
Learned counsel for respondent has put in appearance. She has also filed a connected petition [C.M(M) No.136/2017 titled Maniu
Yadav Vs. Harsh Yadav] which shall be disposed of by this common order. This is a petition filed by the respondent-wife; who has assailed the order dated 07.10.2015. Her grievance is that these documents should not have been permitted to be taken on record.
This Court at the outset notes that the order dated 7.10.2015 is an order which goes back to almost 1 year and 4 months; pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2015 this Court has been informed that the petitioner-husband had filed his additional, affidavit and the aforenoted documents had been brought on record' in the evidence of the petitioner-husband; they had been given marks and had not been exhibited in the absence of the relevant witnesses being brought on record.to prove said documents. It was in this background, after the additional evidence has been filed by the petitioner-husband, that petitioner had moved his application seeking summoning of the relevant witnesses to prove these three documents. At the cost of repetition, the impugned order dated 11.5.2016 had declined-this
• permission.
This Court notes the background of the case. This Court notes that the petitioner-husband had filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty against his estranged wife. In the body of the petition it has been averred by the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife was living at her parental home for continuous period of two months and it was not possible for her to have become pregnant; this was largely the premise on which medical prescription has been peiTnitted to be taken on record vide order dated 07.10.2015.
This Court is of the view that the ,order dated 07.10.2015 has now attained a finality. Not only for the reason that the challenge to this order has been laid after a delay of more than 1 year 4 months but also for the reason that after that order,had been passed, the additional evidence of the petitioner-husband had been taken on record and in fact the aforenoted documents had been produced in the evidence of the petitioner. The respondent wife seeking to lay a challenge on this order is a fmitless attempt. Her petition is accordingly dismissed.
The submission of the husband that the aforenoted documents having been brought on record but the same not being proved in accordance with law would make the order dated 07.10.2015 a redundant order is a submission which this Court appreciates. This
Court thus is of the view that the two FIRs which are public documents will be read in evidence on the condition that the petitioner will produce certified copies of the said documents on the record. To prove the medical prescription (which has also been given a mark and not exhibited) the petitioner-husband is peiTnitted to summon Dr. Sushila Kuhar from Manushree Maternity and Surgery Centre to prove the aforenoted medical prescription.
This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Needless to state that the order passed by this Court does not reflect upon the controversy between the parties; the aforenoted documents which have been permitted to be taken on record are only pieces of evidence which have to be considered by the Trial Judge while appreciating evidence and deciding th^ matter.
Petitions disposed of INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 03, 2017
Petitioner Harsh Yadav is aggrieved by an order dated
2017:DHC:8830 11.5.2016. His submission is that the learned Family Court Judge vide an earlier order dated 07.10.2015 had permitted three of his documents to be brought on record. The first two documents which were permitted to be brought on record were the two FIRs i.e. FIR
No.535/2013 registered under Sections 306/34/498A of the IPC and
FIR No.673/2014 registered under Section 420/120 B of the IPC. In both the FIRs Prem Kumar was an accused; he is alleged to be a relation/friend of the respondent wife. The third document which,has been, permitted to be brought on record was a prescription issued by
Dr.Sushila Kuhar ofManushree Maternity and Surgery Centre. These documents had been allowed to be taken on record by the Trial Court vide order dated 07.10.2015. Vide subsequent order dated 11.5.2016
(now impugned), the learned Family Judge has refused the prayer made by the petitioner-husband to summon the witnesses to prove the aforenoted documents. This is the grievance of the petitioner- husband.
Learned counsel for respondent has put in appearance. She has also filed a connected petition [C.M(M) No.136/2017 titled Maniu
Yadav Vs. Harsh Yadav] which shall be disposed of by this common order. This is a petition filed by the respondent-wife; who has assailed the order dated 07.10.2015. Her grievance is that these documents should not have been permitted to be taken on record.
This Court at the outset notes that the order dated 7.10.2015 is an order which goes back to almost 1 year and 4 months; pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2015 this Court has been informed that the petitioner-husband had filed his additional, affidavit and the aforenoted documents had been brought on record' in the evidence of the petitioner-husband; they had been given marks and had not been exhibited in the absence of the relevant witnesses being brought on record.to prove said documents. It was in this background, after the additional evidence has been filed by the petitioner-husband, that petitioner had moved his application seeking summoning of the relevant witnesses to prove these three documents. At the cost of repetition, the impugned order dated 11.5.2016 had declined-this
• permission.
This Court notes the background of the case. This Court notes that the petitioner-husband had filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty against his estranged wife. In the body of the petition it has been averred by the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife was living at her parental home for continuous period of two months and it was not possible for her to have become pregnant; this was largely the premise on which medical prescription has been peiTnitted to be taken on record vide order dated 07.10.2015.
This Court is of the view that the ,order dated 07.10.2015 has now attained a finality. Not only for the reason that the challenge to this order has been laid after a delay of more than 1 year 4 months but also for the reason that after that order,had been passed, the additional evidence of the petitioner-husband had been taken on record and in fact the aforenoted documents had been produced in the evidence of the petitioner. The respondent wife seeking to lay a challenge on this order is a fmitless attempt. Her petition is accordingly dismissed.
The submission of the husband that the aforenoted documents having been brought on record but the same not being proved in accordance with law would make the order dated 07.10.2015 a redundant order is a submission which this Court appreciates. This
Court thus is of the view that the two FIRs which are public documents will be read in evidence on the condition that the petitioner will produce certified copies of the said documents on the record. To prove the medical prescription (which has also been given a mark and not exhibited) the petitioner-husband is peiTnitted to summon Dr. Sushila Kuhar from Manushree Maternity and Surgery Centre to prove the aforenoted medical prescription.
This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Needless to state that the order passed by this Court does not reflect upon the controversy between the parties; the aforenoted documents which have been permitted to be taken on record are only pieces of evidence which have to be considered by the Trial Judge while appreciating evidence and deciding th^ matter.
Petitions disposed of INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 03, 2017
JUDGMENT