Himmat Singh Channa vs Baljinder Kaur

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 7913-CII of 2012

The application is allowed and necessary correction in the annexures is allowed. Order Annexure P-2 annexed with the main petition shall be read as Annexure P-3 and reply Annexure P-3 annexed with the main petition shall be read as Annexure P-2.

Main Case

Husband Himmat Singh Channa has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 29.02.2012 Annexure P-3 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar. Wife Baljinder Kaur respondent herein has filed divorce petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her husband Himmat Singh Channa/petitioner herein. On 29.02.2012 five witnesses of the wife were present and were examined-in-chief. The husband was represented by proxy counsel in the trial Court and he prayed for adjournment. Neither respondent nor his original counsel was present. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.02.2012 declined the prayer for adjournment and treated the cross-examination of the aforesaid five witnesses as nil.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of the aforesaid five witnesses.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that counsel for the husband in the trial Court had gone to attend some function instead of attending to the case. No request in advance was made to the Court nor the husband was himself present in the Court. Out of five witnesses, two had come from out stations.

Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if aforesaid prayer of counsel for the petitioner is accepted on payment of cost. Complete non-examination of witnesses of the wife would amount to admission of their statements made in examination-in-chief and thereby the husband would be defeated by default. Even otherwise it is matrimonial dispute.

I intend to dispose of this revision without issuing notice to wife-respondent herein so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the divorce petition and also to save the wife-respondent of the financial burden she may have to bear in engaging counsel for this revision petition if notice thereof is issued to her. Accordingly the instant revision petition is allowed and trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the husband for cross-examination of aforesaid five witnesses of the wife, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)as cost precedent. The wife shall produce the said witnesses or the trial Court shall procure their presence for cross-examination by the husband.