NEW DELHI: When a divorce petition reaches court, can one spouse bring up new evidence after both sides have finished presenting their cases? The Jammu and Kashmir high court has explained when a court can allow this, in a divorce case in which a wife recently claimed that her husband had married another woman while they were still married.The high court allowed the wife to present two new witnesses and question her husband again, saying the alleged second marriage could be relevant to the divorce case.Why did the wife seek to present fresh evidence?As per the court order, the husband had filed a divorce petition, accusing his wife of cruelty and desertion, or leaving him without a valid reason. He also alleged that she had not followed a court order requiring her to resume living with him.Both sides presented their evidence in the family court. After the evidence was completed and the case was listed for final arguments, the wife filed an application seeking permission to question her husband again and examine two additional witnesses.She told the family court that she had recently learnt that her husband had allegedly married another woman while his marriage with her was still valid. She claimed that he had three children from that marriage and that she learnt about it after meeting a man who was married to the alleged second wife’s daughter.The wife argued that this information was important to her defence in this divorce case.If proved, the alleged second marriage could help explain why she had not returned to live with her husband and could also be relevant to his allegations of cruelty.The husband opposed the application. He argued that the wife already knew about the alleged second marriage and that there was no need to reopen the evidence. He also challenged the family court’s decision to impose Rs 10,000 in costs on him for allegedly hiding the marriage.The husband pointed out that the wife had filed a complaint alleging bigamy against him in 1997. That complaint, however, concerned an alleged marriage with a different woman and was dismissed in 2014.When can a court allow new evidence after a trial?Justice Sanjay Dhar examined the rules governing the recall of witnesses and the reopening of evidence. The court explained that judges can recall a witness to clear up doubts about evidence already presented, but this power cannot be routinely used to give either side another chance to fill gaps in its case.The court also noted that judges can use their powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow fresh evidence in suitable cases when it is relevant and necessary for a fair decision.“If, after the trial of the case, it is established that, in fact, the petitioner, Mangat Ram, had entered into wedlock during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent, it would have a bearing upon the outcome of the issue as to whether the respondent was justified in not joining the company of the petitioner,” the court said.The court said the alleged second marriage, if established, could also provide a defence against the husband’s allegations of cruelty. It found that the documents submitted by the wife appeared to support her claim that the additional evidence could be relevant.“Since important and relevant evidence is sought to be produced by the respondent, it would be necessary for the Court to recall the petitioner, Mangat Ram, to elicit the requisite information and to clarify the doubts arising from the evidence led by the parties on this aspect of the matter,” the court added.However, the court did not agree that all the witnesses should be recalled. It noted that two of the husband’s witnesses had already stated during cross-examination that they knew nothing about the alleged second marriage. Recalling them would therefore serve no useful purpose.The family court had directed the husband to pay Rs 10,000 in costs for allegedly concealing his second marriage. The high court said this was premature because the alleged marriage had not yet been proved.“Without recording such a finding, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has concealed the fact with regard to his second marriage. The direction of the learned trial court to this extent is not sustainable in law,” it further added.The high court partly allowed the husband’s petition. It upheld the family court’s decision to question him again and allow the wife to examine the two new witnesses. The family court was directed to continue hearing the divorce case in line with the high court’s observations.
About The Author
