SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has permitted a woman to present two additional witnesses in her divorce proceedings after she alleged that her husband had contracted another marriage during the subsistence of their marriage, observing that the evidence could have a bearing on the outcome of the case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while partly allowing a petition filed by Mangat Ram, upheld the Family Court’s decision to recall him for further examination and allow his wife, Shano Devi, to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. However, the High Court set aside the direction to recall two other witnesses and the imposition of Rs 10,000 in costs on the husband, observing that the alleged second marriage had yet to be established.
In its judgment pronounced on September 26, 2026, the court held that the proposed evidence was relevant to determining whether the wife was justified in not joining her husband’s company and could also provide a defence to the allegations of cruelty levelled against her.
The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by Mangat Ram under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which he sought dissolution of his marriage with Shano Devi on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, besides alleging non-compliance with a decree passed against her under Section 9 of the Act.
After both sides completed their evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments, Shano Devi approached the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu, seeking permission to recall the petitioner and three of his witnesses for further cross-examination and to produce Raman Kumar and Priya Rani as additional witnesses.
She submitted that she had recently learnt that her husband had married Laxmi Devi while his first marriage was subsisting and that the couple had three children. According to her, she obtained this information after meeting Raman Kumar, who is married to Priya Rani, stated to be the daughter of Mangat Ram and Laxmi Devi.
The Family Court, through an order dated December 11, 2024, allowed the application, permitting the recall of Mangat Ram and two of his witnesses, Sansar Chand and Prem Nath, besides allowing the wife to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. It also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on Mangat Ram for allegedly concealing information about the second marriage.
Challenging the order before the High Court, Mangat Ram argued that reopening the evidence was unwarranted. He also questioned the imposition of costs, contending that the alleged second marriage had not been established.
Justice Dhar examined the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), referring to Supreme Court judgments in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy.
The court observed that Order XVIII Rule 17 primarily empowers a court to recall a witness to clarify doubts arising from evidence already recorded. It cannot ordinarily be used to fill gaps in testimony or allow parties to reopen cross-examination and introduce additional material at their discretion.
However, the court noted that Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers to reopen evidence and recall witnesses in appropriate cases where necessary to secure the ends of justice, provided the power is exercised cautiously and the circumstances justify its use.
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the material produced by Shano Devi warranted further examination of the alleged second marriage.
The woman had submitted a copy of Priya Rani’s Aadhaar card identifying Mangat Ram as her father and documents relating to proceedings initiated by Priya Rani against Raman Kumar under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of their marriage. A copy of their marriage agreement and other documents were also placed on record, identifying Mangat Ram as Priya Rani’s father.
The court observed that these documents prima facie supported the claim that Priya Rani was Mangat Ram’s daughter and that the information about the alleged marriage with Laxmi Devi required examination during the proceedings.
It further noted that if the allegation of a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage was established, the fact could influence the determination of whether Shano Devi was justified in staying away from her husband. It could also be relevant to her defence against the allegations of cruelty.
The High Court, however, found no justification for recalling Sansar Chand and Prem Nath, as both had already stated during cross-examination that they were unaware of the alleged second marriage.
On the issue of costs, Justice Dhar held that Mangat Ram could not be said to have concealed the alleged marriage before the trial court recorded a finding on whether it had actually taken place. The question could be determined only after the additional witnesses were examined and the husband was recalled.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the Family Court’s order insofar as it directed the recall of Sansar Chand and Prem Nath and imposed costs of Rs 10,000, while upholding the recall of Mangat Ram and permission to Shano Devi to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani.
The trial court was directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the High Court’s observations.
The judgment was reserved on September 15 and pronounced on September 26, 2026.
