Smt. Santosh Meena vs Siddharth Meena on 17 November, 2017

1

Writ Petition No.14725/2017.

Jabalpur, dated 17/11/2017
Ms. Ruchika Gohil, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the
respondent.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the
Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent
was solemnized on 31.01.2009 and out of the said marriage
they have one son which is at present in the custody of the
petitioner who is mother. Due to the matrimonial disputes
between them, the petitioner and respondent are living
separately. That in the year 2014, the respondent/husband
has filed an under Section 7 of Guardian and Wards Act
seeking custody of child. Thereafter, in the year 2015, he
has also filed an application under Section 7 of the Family
Courts Act before the Family Court, Bhopal. That in child
custody case, husband has recorded his statements when in
the latter divorce case, his earlier statements were shown to
him during his cross-examination for contradiction the trial
Court vide order dated 14.07.2017 did not permit to do so
in view of the Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Hence the present petition before this Court.
I have heard the parties.

2

Writ Petition No.14725/2017.

In para-49 of the cross-examination, the
respondent/husband has admitted that his evidence in a
case for child custody has been concluded. The petitioner
was having a copy of the statement recorded in the said
case and which was shown to the respondent but the Court
suo-moto did not permit him in light of Section 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act. As per Section 145 witness may be
cross-examined as to the previous statements made by him
in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matter in
question, without such writing being shown to him, or
being proved in the case. If the respondent has admitted
that his statements were recorded, there is no dispute about
his earlier statements. Therefore, learned Court below has
wrongly denied by applying provision of Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act. Hence the impugned order is set
aside. The Court below is directed to proceed further.

This Court vide order dated 19.05.2017 in Writ
Petition No.7303/2017 had already directed the Family
Court to decide the divorce case as early as possible
preferably within six months. Hence no further direction is
necessary.

Accordingly, petition stands allowed.

(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Devashish
DEVASHISH MISHRA Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode482001, stMadhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20db02acf8752ec7d40d9c7b2706998aa1774d10503fedd8b615ae6aa42b0742c1, cnDEVASHISH MISHRA
Date: 2017.11.18 17:02:23 +05’30’

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *