AO/264/2018 of Smt. Ruchi Punetha Vs Ashish Punetha
Parties
- AO/264/2018 of Smt. Ruchi Punetha (PETITIONER)
- Ashish Punetha (RESPONDENT)
Statutes cited (3)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
MCC No.194 of 2019 (Review Application)
AO No.264 of 2018
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani,J.
Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr.
B.D. Pande, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocate for the respondent.
In pending matrimonial proceeding where the appellant/wife had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and as counterclaim, husband/respondent had sought dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the proceedings before the court below, certain evidence were placed by the husband/respondent, which were “recorded conversations” on mobile phone between the present appellant and her mother.
What was placed before the court below is still to be examined. However, in order to go to the truth of the matter, the Family Court had also directed that the sample voice of the appellant/wife and the other person who was in conservation with her be recorded vide order dated 25.05.2018. This order was challenged by the appellant before this Court.
The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2019 observing that the evidence be placed before the court and which has to be decided in the light of Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Now review application has been filed before this Court by the applicant for reviewing the order dated 13.02.2019 on ground that this Court has said nothing regarding the wife and the other person for recording of the sample voice.
This was also the prayer of the appellant in the appeal and evidently has not been granted to the appellant which would mean the same has been rejected. Moreover, this Court has been informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/husband that in this case arguments have already been concluded and the matter is now placed for the delivery of judgment before the court below.
At this stage, therefore an interference in any case would not be proper. The review application is hereby dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.07.2019
Ankit/