Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shekhar vs Smt. Amita on 13 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10043/2018
(Shekhar Vs. Smt. Amita & Ors)
Indore dated : 13/03/2018
Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
The applicant has filed the instant petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
order dated 27/02/2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. 423/2015, whereby his right to
produce evidence has been closed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
respondent has filed an application under Section 127 of the
Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for enhancement of maintenance amount. The case is pending for enquiry of the said application, wherein respondents alleged that the applicant is involved in the business of laundry and by this he is getting sufficient amount. Whereas the applicant contended that he is in private job and he is earning only Rs.4,500/-per month and he is not having any laundry business. To substantiate the fact that at present he is not conducting any business of laundry, he wanted to produce the evidence of Officer In-charge of License Branch, Municipal Corporation Indore. However, he did not turn up even after the service of notice, therefore, a bailable warrant was issued against him for securing his presence. But despite of issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear in the Court. The aforesaid witness is working in Semi Govt. Body, therefore, the applicant is unable to bring him and produce before the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27/02/2018 the case was fixed for recording the evidence of aforesaid witness, but due to oversight, he could not pay the process-fee, therefore, on the aforesaid date, the witness was not present and due to his single default, the trial Court has closed his right to produce the evidence and fixed the matter for final arguments. Due to this he has been deprived to produce his evidence. The impugned order is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and directing the trial Court to give him one opportunity to produce his evidence.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and this petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court shall provide the applicant an opportunity to produce the aforesaid witness.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari Date: 2018.03.16 17:31:14 +05'30'