Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Sujata Joshi vs Chinmay Joshi on 21 November, 2019

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                           1                              MP-4467-2019
                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                            MP-4467-2019
                                               (SMT. SUJATA JOSHI Vs CHINMAY JOSHI)


                        Indore, Dated : 21-11-2019
                               Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

                               None for the respondent despite service.

Heard.

Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2019 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC has been rejected.

Petitioner/wife has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. She has made specific allegation in para-5 &b 6 of the petition about the conduct of the respondent. The respondent filed the written statement and thereafter issues have been framed and evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. Thereafter plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC for taking the CD and transcript in respect of conversation of respondent with other women on record. However, learned court has rejected the application only on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff has been completed and she has not given any valid explanation for filing the application at belated stage. The evidence of defendant has not started yet.

The trial Court is a fact finding Court where the party should get full opportunity to give their evidence. There is no delay in filing the application. Since the material which is sought to be produced for which the allegations have already been made in the memo of the petition, theref0re, the petitioner being wife should get full opportunity to prove the allegations made in the complaint, hence the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC is allowed. The document is taken on record subject to fulfilment of requirement of section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 22/11/2019 11:57:25

2 MP-4467-2019 (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 22/11/2019 11:57:25