Evedence -in-chief in 125 crpc along with supporting documents
harshit
(Querist) 14 April 2017
This query is : Resolved
Dear expert,
My case (husband) is on the stage of evidence -in-chief in 125 crpc. Now I have to submit my Evidence on affidavit.
My question is that can i submit/attach the supporting documents as annexure along with this evidence(gawahi/Sachhya).
My lawyer told me you can submit/annex whatever you have documents.
But my other lawyer told me you can not submit!!!!!because there is documentry evidence act which you have to follow. But I could not under stand.
Kindly advice me and suggest. Beacause I have lot of documents to prove the denay or reduce the maintenance for my spose (divorced but 125 crpc still pending).
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 14 April 2017
You shall have to annex the documents upon you are relying upon along-with your affidavit and also do mention those documents in the affidavit. Though some magistrates also provide an opportunity to lea documentary evidence but use that opportunity, if given for the submission of those documents which stand left over.
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
(Expert) 14 April 2017
yes, you can file all your documents along with your affidavit.Go a head, as suggested by Makkad Sir.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 14 April 2017
You can benefit from the advice in the thread.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 16 April 2017
Nothing more to add, well advised by experts.
However, have faith in your lawyer and do not adventure to seek second/Free opinion on this platform, which may prove disastrous since you are submitting limited information.
harshit
(Querist) 16 April 2017
Thanks to all experts
harshit
(Querist) 20 April 2017
Dear expert,
I have submitted evidence -in-chief in 125 crpc along with supporting documents. Now,I want to submit the judgement decided by by Apex court/High Court as a citation on the day of "BAHAS".
My query is that can I submit the judgement down load from internet etc. as a citation. I have two judgment, But I dont know know where and inwhich Journal it has been reported.
1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 201 Of 2006
Smt. Archana Gupta & Another ………….. Revisionists.
Versus
Sri Rajeev Gupta & Another ………….Respondents
Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 2.
Dated: November 18, 2009
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
2)
Bench: B Katju
Manmohan Singh vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur on 25/3/1976
ORDER
B.N. Katju, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973.
2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 against the applicant dated
6-5-1974 in the court of C. J. M., Dehradun. The applicant filed his written statement on 4-6-1974. Thereafter
the statements of the opposite party and the applicant were recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun on 23-11-1974
and 6-2-1975 respectively. The C. J. M., Dehradun by his order dated 3-8-1975 directed the applicant to pay
Rs. 300 per month to the opposite party as maintenance allowance with effect from 7-5-1974. The applicant
filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1974 against the aforesaid order which was allowed in part by the Sessions
Judge, Dehradun by his order dated 2-9-1975 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 150 per month as
maintenance allowance to the opposite party with effect from 7-5-1974.
3. Under Section 125(1)(a), Cr., P. C. 1973 maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is
neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is
unable to maintain herself. It may be pointed out that this is a-departure from Section 488 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 wherein every wife, whether she was able or was not able to maintain herself, was
entitled to maintenance if she was neglected or not maintained by her husband. As it was not alleged by the
opposite party in her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 and it was also not stated by her in her
statement recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun that she was unable to maintain herself and no finding has been
recorded by the C. J, M., Dehradun or the Sessions Judge, Dehradun that the opposite party was unable to
maintain herself, the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge,
Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are clearly illegal.
4. This application is accordingly allowed and the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the
order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are set aside.
Manmohan Singh vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur on 25 March, 1976.
Kindly help to arrange these two citations in which Journal it has been reported so that i can collect it and submit it before court..
