The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has partly upheld a Family Court order that allowed a wife to bring fresh evidence about her husband’s alleged second marriage. Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the recall of two other witnesses and the Rs 10,000 costs imposed on the husband.
Background
Mangat Ram had approached the Family Court in Jammu seeking divorce from Shano Devi under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He cited desertion, non-compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and cruelty. She contested the petition.
Both sides led their evidence. When the case reached final arguments, Shano Devi applied to recall her husband and three of his witnesses, and to examine two new witnesses, Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. She claimed she had only recently learned that her husband married Laxmi Devi during the subsistence of their marriage. She said she learned this from Raman Kumar, the son-in-law of her husband, who is married to Priya Rani, the daughter of Mangat Ram and Laxmi Devi.
On 11 December 2024, the Family Court allowed the application and imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the husband. He challenged the order before the High Court. He argued that there was no need to reopen the evidence, and that costs could not be imposed before it was decided whether the second marriage had taken place. He also said his wife already knew of the alleged second marriage, since she had filed a bigamy complaint against him that was dismissed in 2014.
The Court first explained the difference between the two provisions. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and K.K. Velusamy, it said Order 18 Rule 17 lets a court recall a witness only to clear its own doubts. Justice Dhar summed up the position:
“From the foregoing analysis of the legal position with regard to the scope and power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, it is clear that the said power can be used by the Court trying a suit only to clarify any doubt which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The provision cannot be used to fill up the lacunae or omissions in the testimony of a witness who has already been examined. It is also clear that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC has to be used sparingly, in appropriate cases and with circumspection, and it cannot be used to reopen the evidence of a party.”
Section 151 CPC, which saves a court’s inherent powers, can be used when a party finds new evidence after the evidence is closed and it is necessary in the interest of justice.
On the facts, the Court noted that the earlier bigamy complaint named a different woman, Bholi Devi, and the allegation was not proved. The present claim concerns Laxmi Devi. The wife had also filed documents, including Priya Rani’s Aadhaar card, her annulment petition and a marriage agreement, which prima facie named Mangat Ram as her father. The Court then observed:
“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 and it would also be a good defence to the respondent against the evidence led by the petitioner to prove the allegations of cruelty. The evidence sought to be led by the respondent pertains to the conduct of the petitioner and, as such, the Court, in exercise of its power under Section 151 CPC, would be justified in permitting production of such evidence, as it is relevant and necessary in the interests of justice to do so.”
The High Court upheld the recall of Mangat Ram for further examination and the permission to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. It set aside the recall of PWs Sansar Chand and Prem Nath, since both had already said in cross-examination that they were unaware of any second marriage.
The Court also set aside the Rs 10,000 costs. It reasoned that the second marriage is yet to be established, so the husband could not be said to have concealed it.
The Family Court was directed to proceed in line with these observations, and the petition was disposed of.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi
- Case Number: CM(M) No. 3/2025
- Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
- Decision Date: 26 September 2026
