SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has allowed a woman to produce additional evidence concerning her husband’s alleged second marriage, holding that the material could be relevant to her defence in an ongoing matrimonial dispute.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on September 26, 2026, partly allowed a petition filed by Mangat Ram against an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. The High Court upheld the permission granted to Shano Devi to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani and recalled Mangat Ram for examination, but set aside directions requiring the recall of two other witnesses and payment of Rs 10,000 in costs.
The matrimonial proceedings arise from a petition filed by Mangat Ram under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with Shano Devi on grounds including desertion, alleged non-compliance with a decree under Section 9 of the Act and cruelty.
After the parties completed their evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments, Shano Devi approached the Family Court seeking recall of Mangat Ram and three of his witnesses and permission to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. She claimed that she had recently learnt that Mangat Ram had married Laxmi Devi while his first marriage was subsisting and that they had a daughter, Priya Rani.
The High Court noted that Shano Devi had placed several documents before the Family Court, including Priya Rani’s Aadhaar Card showing Mangat Ram as her father and the same residential address. She also produced a petition filed by Priya Rani under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a marriage agreement concerning Priya Rani and Raman Kumar, both of which recorded Mangat Ram as Priya Rani’s father.
Mangat Ram had argued that the alleged second marriage was not newly discovered, pointing out that Shano Devi had previously filed a complaint under Section 494 of the RPC against him before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. That complaint was dismissed by judgment dated May 31, 2014.
The High Court, however, observed that the earlier complaint concerned an alleged marriage with a woman named Bholi Devi, daughter of Balak Ram, whereas the present allegation relates to Laxmi Devi. The court therefore found that the earlier proceedings did not establish that Shano Devi had previously known about the alleged marriage with Laxmi Devi.
Justice Dhar held that if the alleged second marriage were established during the trial, it could have a bearing on whether Shano Devi was justified in not joining Mangat Ram and could also constitute a defence to the allegations of cruelty.
The court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, which hold that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall witnesses must be exercised sparingly and primarily to enable the court to clarify doubts in evidence.
It further held that Section 151 CPC permits a court, in appropriate circumstances, to reopen evidence or allow additional evidence where it is relevant and necessary in the interests of justice, although the power must be exercised with caution.
The High Court found that recalling Mangat Ram was justified so that the court could obtain necessary information and clarify issues arising from the proposed evidence. However, it held that recalling witnesses Sansar Chand and Prem Nath was unnecessary because both had already stated during cross-examination that they had no knowledge of Mangat Ram’s alleged second marriage.
The court also set aside the Rs 10,000 costs imposed on Mangat Ram, observing that the alleged marriage with Laxmi Devi had not yet been established and, therefore, it could not at that stage be concluded that he had concealed the information.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed Mangat Ram’s petition, set aside the Family Court’s order insofar as it concerned the recall of Sansar Chand and Prem Nath and the imposition of Rs 10,000 costs, while upholding the recall of Mangat Ram and permission for Shano Devi to produce Raman Kumar and Priya Rani as witnesses.
The Family Court was directed to proceed in accordance with the observations made by the High Court.
