C. R. No. 2749 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2749 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 06, 2010 Nilima Poonia .... Petitioner Vs. Major Ashish Poonia .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Wife Nilima Poonia has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against her husband Major Ashish Poonia – respondent assailing order dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar. Respondent husband has filed divorce petition against petitioner wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner wife in her evidence summoned witness from the Army with some record as the respondent is Major in the Army. There were some proceedings before the C. R. No. 2749 of 2010 2 Army Authorities regarding claim of the wife for maintenance from the salary of the husband. The witness – Lt. Col. R. S. Rathore brought the record. Wife's counsel wanted the witness to give photocopies of the record, which the witness declined without order of the Court. The witness stated that if the Court gives direction for the photocopies, the witness would seek permission for the same from his superior authority and only then the copies can be supplied. Thereafter, wife moved application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the aforesaid witness for production of photocopies. The said application has been disposed of by the Family Court by impugned order Annexure P-1 observing that if the applicant-wife so desired, she could summon the witness along with relevant record/proceedings regarding claim of maintenance at the time of final arguments in the divorce petition for perusal of the Court. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the witness claimed privilege regarding the documents in question and therefore, refused to supply photocopies of the documents. The contention is not borne out of the record. On pointed inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any part of statement of witness namely Lt. Col. C. R. No. 2749 of 2010 3 R. S. Rathore, wherein he claimed the documents to be privileged ones. On the contrary, procedure for proving copy of a document is that the party should have the copy and by summoning the original record, the copy can be proved. However, in the instant case, the petitioner wife did not have copies of the documents sought to be proved from witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner never applied to the Army Authorities for obtaining photocopies of the documents in question. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of with observation that the petitioner wife may obtain copies of the documents in question from the Army Authorities and if, for any reason, Army Authorities refuse to supply the copies, the petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application in the Family Court. If any such application is moved, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. However, if the copies are supplied to the petitioner by the Army Authorities, the petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application in the Family Court for recall of the witness for proving the said copies. However, it is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of any such application that may be moved by the petitioner wife. The Family Court shall decide the application, if any moved, in accordance with law. October 06, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE