( 2026:HHC:366 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.232/2024 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 Supreety Jagota .....Petitioner Versus Hepesh Jagota ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Mand, H.P., whereby the right of the present petitioner to lead evidence was closed by the learned Court below. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. From a perusal of the zimni orders placed on record, it is evident that the respondent’s evidence in the case at hand before the trial Court was closed on 11.12.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.12.2023, the present petitioner was directed to produce evidence in support of her case and for the same, the matter was listed on 18.01.2024. On 18.01.2024, no witnesses on behalf of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the petitioner (respondent) were produced before the trial Court. The matter was thereafter posted for 13.03.2024. Yet again, no witnesses were produced. The situation did not change on subsequent dates, i.e. 20.03.2024, 05.04.2024, 09.04.2024, 19.04.2024 and 24.04.2024. 4. When the case was posted for recording of petitioner/respondent evidence on 20.03.2024, 09.04.2024 and 19.04.2024, the witnesses were to be produced on self- responsibility. When the matter was fixed for recording of evidence on 19.04.2024, an application was filed seeking adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 24.04.2024 and a reply to the application seeking adjournment was solicited. 5. In the application filed seeking adjournment on 19.04.2024, the reason cited for non-production of evidence was the non-payment of maintenance by the present respondent to the petitioner. Other than the aforesaid, reason for seeking adjournment on 19.04.2024 was that the present petitioner was undergoing treatment, qua which a medical certificate/prescription was stated to have been placed on record, however, the same has not been placed on record along with the present petition. 6. Insofar as the plea of non-payment of maintenance amount by the present respondent to the petitioner is 3 concerned and the same being raised as a reason for not producing evidence, details qua payment of maintenance were solicited by this Court. In the backdrop of the pleadings so filed before this Court, the following order was passed on 16.12.2025:- A petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read with Sections 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 was filed on 02.03.2020. The said petition was decided on 22.03.2023 in the following terms:- “23. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion and findings of this Court on point No. 1 and keeping in view the status, income and liabilities of the parties, the following relief is hereby granted:- 1)The respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner enabling her to maintain herself from the date of judgment, as interim maintenance has already been granted in this case. ii) The respondent is further directed to provide a suitable accommodation to the petitioner in the shared household/ matrimonial home or at the place as per convenience of the petitioner as per the living standard of the respondent and as maintained by the petitioner at her matrimonial home. iii) The respondent is further directed to bear the entire education and the related expenses of his minor children. The respondent shall further deposit the amount of Rs.5000/-each in the bank accounts of his minor children to meet their day to day miscellaneous expenses, if any, from the date of this order. (iv)The respondent is further restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner”. An appeal was preferred there against and the same was registered on 18.4.2023. The appeal so preferred was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 27.6.2023. While deciding the appeal, certain observations were made by the 1st Appellate Court which are being reproduced here- in-below:- 31. Therefore, the amount of 40,000/- per month to the applicant, Rs. 5,000/- each to his minor children, accommodation to the applicant as per her convenience would be more than the income of the respondent and 4 the amount awarded by learned trial Court cannot be sustained. 32 The learned trial Court had granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹ 30,000/- to the applicant which included the maintenance for children as well. This amount was reasonable keeping in view the living status of the parties. The applicant herself claimed in the application that the respondent was paying 30,000/-as maintenance to her and has not raised any grievance regarding its inadequacy. If the respondent pays the amount of ₹ 30,000/- to the applicant, he would be left with an income of 20,000/- which should be sufficient to maintain him. In the aforesaid backdrop, the following relief was granted by the 1st Appellate Court:- “In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court is modified and it is ordered that instead of the maintenance of ₹ 40,000/- per month, the respondent will pay the maintenance of 30,000/- per month, which will include the expenses of the applicant and her children. Subject to this modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. The record of the learned trial court along with a copy of this judgment be returned, while that of this court be consigned to Record Room, after completion.” In view thereof, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has filed an affidavit with respect to payment of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner and payable by the respondent. The same is placed at page No.99 of the paper book. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that from March, 2020 till November, 2024, i.e., from the making of the complaint till the decision of the First Appellate Court, the amount payable towards maintenance was ₹16,80,000/-. The entire amount stands paid in terms of the affidavit filed. It is further pointed out that the regular payments in terms of the Appellate Court order are being made. Hence, in view thereof, there are no arrears of maintenance as on date payable.” 7. Hence, it can be safely held that plea of non-payment of maintenance raised for seeking adjournment on 19.4.2024 is palpably false. 5 8. It has been held by this Court in Shamsher Singh v. Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298 that if a party does not lead evidence despite repeated opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait infinitely for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. It was observed:- “4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court along with the record of the case, in my considered view, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that the evidence of the defendant was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording him more than three opportunities to lead evidence. If a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while ordering that the defendant be granted an opportunity to lead evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion 6 and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial on 16.01.2026. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 01st January, 2026 (Tarun)