CR No.4667 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4667 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2010 Ajitpal ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sukhbir Kaur ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.18558-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.4667 of 2010 The petitioner husband has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 20.7.2010 whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been declined by the trial Court. As per the averments, a petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, filed at the instance of the petitioner, is pending before the trial Court. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed an application for adducing additional evidence stating that the respondent-wife was earlier married to one Parwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh and a divorce petition between them was disposed of under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 11.5.2000. However, the aforesaid documents were not produced by the respondent. The petitioner could trace the aforesaid document and got certified copies of the aforesaid judgment dated 11.5.2000 only in May, 2010 and now the applicant-petitioner wants to CR No.4667 of 2010 (O&M) 2 bring the same on the file as these documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute in order to show the conduct of the respondent and these documents were not with the petitioner at the time of leading his evidence and therefore, the same could not be produced earlier. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent. While rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, the trial Court observed that documents sought to be proved are not relevant for the issue in hand and moreover, the factum of earlier marriage and divorce of the respondent was already to the knowledge of the petitioner and he had availed 10 opportunities for leading his evidence in the affirmative and he could have produced these documents by leading his evidence at that stage and now the application seems to have been filed to delay the proceedings. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are essential for just and proper decision of the case as vide the aforesaid document, the petitioner seeks to prove the conduct of the respondent. In support of her case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Phuman Singh and another v. Hazara Singh and others 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 671. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the present case, the trial Court has found that the documents sought to be proved are not relevant for the issue in hand. Simply because in the earlier petition CR No.4667 of 2010 (O&M) 3 allegations were made that the respondent had treated her earlier husband with cruelty, it does not mean that the same are relevant for the purpose of establishing cruelty against the petitioner by the respondent in the present case. Moreover, the aforesaid divorce petition was disposed of under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e. by way of mutual consent. The trial is at the fag end. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner earlier approached this Court and sought direction to decide the divorce petition filed by him expeditiously. On his petition i.e. CR No.4272 of 2009 (Annexure P-1), this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the petition within six months vide order dated 26.8.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved the present application for additional evidence only on 16.7.2010, i.e. after 11 months. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. July 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE