IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 Mannu Gupta Priyanka CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. India is filed seeking whereby application for leading additional evidence based on subsequent development between the parties, has been wrongly dismissed. 2. petitioner had filed the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) seeking permission to produce additional evidence whereby the petitioner wanted to summon and examine witness and tender on record crucial documents to assist the Court to deal more effectual hand. It is submitted that wrongly dismissed as the submission of the above material and essential for the proper adjudication of the matter and for the effective pron IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mannu Gupta Vs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P5) whereby application for leading additional evidence based on subsequent development between the parties, has been wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had filed the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) seeking permission to produce additional evidence whereby the petitioner wanted to summon and examine witness and tender on record crucial documents to assist the Court to deal more effectual It is submitted that the said application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed as the submission of the above material and essential for the proper adjudication of the matter and for the effective pronouncement of judgment. Moreover, no prejudice would have IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2711-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate under Article 227 of the Constitution of setting aside of order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P5) whereby application for leading additional evidence based on subsequent development between the parties, has been wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the had filed the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) seeking permission to produce additional evidence whereby the petitioner wanted to summon and examine witness and tender on record crucial documents to assist the Court to deal more effectually with the dispute at the said application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed as the submission of the above-said evidence was material and essential for the proper adjudication of the matter and for the Moreover, no prejudice would have 6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of setting aside of order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P5) whereby application for leading additional evidence based on subsequent the had filed the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) seeking permission to produce additional evidence whereby the petitioner wanted to summon and examine witness and tender on record crucial ly with the dispute at the said application of the petitioner has been said evidence was material and essential for the proper adjudication of the matter and for the Moreover, no prejudice would have SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been caused to the respondent by leading of the said evidence. submitted that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not have produced the said witness was out of State and beyond the reach of the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 3. 4. perused the case file in great detail 5. married to the respondent on 21.01.2015 wedlock on 09.01.2017 petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 6. the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) for producing the following additional been caused to the respondent by leading of the said evidence. submitted that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not have produced the above-said witness along with above said witness was out of State and beyond the reach of the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 21.01.2015. One son was born out of their wedlock on 09.01.2017, who is in the care and custody of the wife. petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure P2). During pendency of the said petition, the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) for producing the following additional evidence: - “a. Sangeeta W/o Karambir (Recorder) R/o 15 Delhi (shadow name Neha Arora), who got prepared the live picture of Audio and video of Priyanka at her parental house at Bhiwani that recording of picture and conversation regarding respondent's tuition and training work and residing in her parental house at Bhiwani is intact, exact in all respect as recorded by Sangeeta alongwith its pen d been caused to the respondent by leading of the said evidence. It is also submitted that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not have witness along with above-said documents as the said witness was out of State and beyond the reach of the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was . One son was born out of their , who is in the care and custody of the wife. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had During pendency of the said petition, the petitioner filed the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) for producing the a. Sangeeta W/o Karambir (Recorder) R/o 15-A, Uttam Nagar Delhi (shadow name Neha Arora), who got prepared the live Priyanka at her parental house at Bhiwani that recording of picture and conversation regarding respondent's tuition and training work and residing in her parental house at Bhiwani is intact, exact in all respect as recorded by Sangeeta alongwith its pen drive NEOGT0118GB 6 It is also submitted that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not have as the said witness was out of State and beyond the reach of the petitioner. It is and brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was . One son was born out of their The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had led the present application dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) for producing the A, Uttam Nagar Delhi (shadow name Neha Arora), who got prepared the live Priyanka at her parental house at Bhiwani that recording of picture and conversation regarding respondent's tuition and training work and residing in her parental house at Bhiwani is intact, exact in all respect as rive NEOGT0118GB SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. the petitioner. Yet, he had failed to produce the same at the time of concluding his evidence on 18.12.2024. petitioner that despite due diligence, he could not have produced the above-said evidence. utterly falsified from the record as it has been admitted by the petitioner himself in the written transcript of the video sought to be produced by him that the said video was available with him since January 2023 recording was available with him since 06.11.2022 (green teck) which contain recording of abovestated audio and video and detail transcripts of conversation between respondent (Priyanka and recorded Sangeeta which was got recorded in the month of January 2023). b. DVD-R 120 min/4.7 GB. 16X WRITEX Company, in which containing mobile conversation between Mannu (M 83135) and Priyanka (M-72069 independent mutual settlement for permanently alongwith transcripts of conversation the parties. c. 100% Disability certificate dated 10.12.2008 of Nisha Rani elder sister of Manu d. Certified copy of statement of Sandeep Singla in case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. titled as Priyanka VS Manu Gupta at Family Cou Bhiwani. e. Certified copy of respondent Priyanka in case u/ titled as Priyanka VS Manu Gupta at Family Court, Bhiwani. As for the record, the said evidence was available with the petitioner. Yet, he had failed to produce the same at the time of concluding his evidence on 18.12.2024. It has been petitioner that despite due diligence, he could not have produced the said evidence. However, the said contention of the petitioner is utterly falsified from the record as it has been admitted by the petitioner the written transcript of the video sought to be produced by him that the said video was available with him since January 2023 recording was available with him since 06.11.2022 (green teck) which contain recording of abovestated audio and video and detail transcripts of conversation between respondent (Priyanka and recorded Sangeeta which was got in the month of January 2023). 16X WRITEX Company, in which containing mobile conversation between Mannu (M- 92554- 72069-47018) regarding the independent mutual settlement for permanently separation, alongwith transcripts of conversation the parties. bility certificate dated 10.12.2008 of Nisha Rani d. Certified copy of statement of Sandeep Singla in case u/s 125 S Manu Gupta at Family Court, e. Certified copy of respondent Priyanka in case u/s 125 Cr. P.C. titled as Priyanka VS Manu Gupta at Family Court, Bhiwani.” As for the record, the said evidence was available with the petitioner. Yet, he had failed to produce the same at the time of It has been contended by the petitioner that despite due diligence, he could not have produced the However, the said contention of the petitioner is utterly falsified from the record as it has been admitted by the petitioner the written transcript of the video sought to be produced by him, that the said video was available with him since January 2023 and the audio recording was available with him since 06.11.2022. Further, some of the 6 (green teck) which contain recording of abovestated audio and video and detail transcripts of conversation between respondent (Priyanka and recorded Sangeeta which was got 16X WRITEX Company, in which - 47018) regarding the separation, bility certificate dated 10.12.2008 of Nisha Rani d. Certified copy of statement of Sandeep Singla in case u/s 125 t, s 125 Cr. P.C. As for the record, the said evidence was available with the petitioner. Yet, he had failed to produce the same at the time of by the petitioner that despite due diligence, he could not have produced the However, the said contention of the petitioner is utterly falsified from the record as it has been admitted by the petitioner , and the audio . Further, some of the SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document evidence sought to be produced by the pet tendered by the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. such, it is clear that the now sought to be led by him by way of additional evidence. 8. availed as many as 12 opportunities 14.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 17.9.2024, 4.10.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 13.11.2024, 29.11.2024, 4.12.2024, 18.12.2024; whereafter matter was fixed for tendering of documentary evidence by the petitioner for 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner tendered documents (Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Mark PA) and completed his affirmative evidence. Thereafter, the 07.02.2025, 10.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 produce his rebuttal evidence sought to be produced possession of the petitioner, reason. It would, the trial. It documents were not produced due to in constitutes no ground for permitting additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. 9. evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner was part of the tendered by the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. such, it is clear that the petitioner was in the knowledge of the evidence now sought to be led by him by way of additional evidence. It has also come on record that the petitioner had availed as many as 12 opportunities to produce his evidence 14.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 17.9.2024, 4.10.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 13.11.2024, 29.11.2024, 4.12.2024, and finally, 18.12.2024; whereafter matter was fixed for tendering of documentary evidence by the petitioner for 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner tendered documents (Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Mark PA) and completed his affirmative evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner availed 5 opportunities i.e. 07.02.2025, 10.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 produce his rebuttal evidence. But despite the fact that the sought to be produced at the time of rebuttal and arguments of the petitioner, the same were withheld without any would, therefore, appear that the same was done only to delay has been admitted by the petitioner documents were not produced due to inadvertence. constitutes no ground for permitting additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. The relevant findings of the itioner was part of the evidence tendered by the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As petitioner was in the knowledge of the evidence now sought to be led by him by way of additional evidence. It has also come on record that the petitioner had to produce his evidence i.e. 2.8.2024, 14.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 17.9.2024, 4.10.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, finally, closed his oral evidence on 18.12.2024; whereafter matter was fixed for tendering of documentary evidence by the petitioner for 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner tendered documents (Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Mark PA) and completed his petitioner availed 5 opportunities i.e. 07.02.2025, 10.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 to the fact that the documents now at the time of rebuttal and arguments, were in the the same were withheld without any apparent therefore, appear that the same was done only to delay by the petitioner himself that the said advertence. However, the same constitutes no ground for permitting additional evidence at the stage of of the Family Court are as follows:- 6 evidence As petitioner was in the knowledge of the evidence It has also come on record that the petitioner had 2.8.2024, 14.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 17.9.2024, 4.10.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, evidence on 18.12.2024; whereafter matter was fixed for tendering of documentary evidence by the petitioner for 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner tendered documents (Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Mark PA) and completed his petitioner availed 5 opportunities i.e. to documents now the apparent therefore, appear that the same was done only to delay that the said However, the same constitutes no ground for permitting additional evidence at the stage of SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “5. The petitioner has filed this application for additional evidence with averment that after due dilige produce earlier the above said witness along with its above said documents as the same witness was out of state and beyond the reach of the petitioner, so the petitioner could not trace out the whereabouts of the above said witness earlier. As per averment in the application, the above said evidence are material, essential for the just decision of this case. When evidence was within the knowledge at the time of leading evidence in affirmative and add the evidence of the defendant cannot be allowed in such circumstances. By application for additional evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to evidence. Merely by stating that evidence sought to produced, has been left due to inadvertence, application for additional evidence can not be allowed as held in Manocha Vs Ravinderpal Singh and Another CR decided on 25.10.2024(PH). Additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna. The proposed evidence was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading evidence and now the case at the rebuttal evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce additional evidence and reliance is placed on Rajbala Vs Dharambir and others CR decided on 20.12.2021, Baldev Singh Vs Harchand Singh and others CR .No.4792 of 2017 (O&M) 16.08.2017 and Gurmej Singh Vs Harbhaja Kaur & others CR No.384 of 2018 decided on 28.11.2018. In view of above said facts and law; the application is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.” 5. The petitioner has filed this application for additional evidence with averment that after due diligence could not produce earlier the above said witness along with its above said documents as the same witness was out of state and beyond the reach of the petitioner, so the petitioner could not eabouts of the above said witness earlier. As per averment in the application, the above said evidence are material, essential for the just decision of this case. When evidence was within the knowledge at the time of leading evidence in affirmative and additional evidence to contradict the evidence of the defendant cannot be allowed in such circumstances. By application for additional evidence, the etitioner cannot be allowed to fill in lacuna left in the evidence. Merely by stating that evidence sought to be produced, has been left due to inadvertence, application for additional evidence can not be allowed as held in Manmohan Singh and Another CR-6259-2024 Additional evidence cannot be e lacuna. The proposed evidence was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading evidence and now the case at the rebuttal evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce additional evidence and reliance is placed and others CR-3396-2021(0&M) decided on 20.12.2021, Baldev Singh Vs Harchand Singh and others CR .No.4792 of 2017 (O&M) 16.08.2017 and Gurmej Singh Vs Harbhaja Kaur & others CR No.384 of 2018 decided . In view of above said facts and law; the present application is bereft of merit and the same is hereby 6 5. The petitioner has filed this application for additional ce could not produce earlier the above said witness along with its above said documents as the same witness was out of state and beyond the reach of the petitioner, so the petitioner could not eabouts of the above said witness earlier. As per averment in the application, the above said evidence are material, essential for the just decision of this case. When evidence was within the knowledge at the time of leading itional evidence to contradict the evidence of the defendant cannot be allowed in such circumstances. By application for additional evidence, the ill in lacuna left in the be produced, has been left due to inadvertence, application for Manmohan 2024 Additional evidence cannot be e lacuna. The proposed evidence was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading evidence and now the case at the rebuttal evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce additional evidence and reliance is placed 2021(0&M) decided on 20.12.2021, Baldev Singh Vs Harchand Singh and others CR .No.4792 of 2017 (O&M) 16.08.2017 and Gurmej Singh Vs Harbhaja Kaur & others CR No.384 of 2018 decided present application is bereft of merit and the same is hereby SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. the learned Family Court. The present petition is, accordingly, 11. 05.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: I am in complete agreement with the above said view of the learned Family Court. The present petition is, accordingly, Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No complete agreement with the above said view of the learned Family Court. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 complete agreement with the above said view of SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document