Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-husband filed a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of nullity of marriage against the respondent-wife. The wife contested the petition, filed her written statement, and examined herself along with two other witnesses. After both parties closed their evidence and advanced final arguments, the petition was listed for judgment on 18.09.2025. However, on 08.10.2025, the wife filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to reopen her evidence and examine an additional witness, namely the President of Triratna Buddha Var Vadhu Suchak Mandal, Amravati. The husband filed a reply opposing the application. The Family Court, Nagpur, by order dated 14.10.2025, allowed the application subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. The husband challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court considered the submissions of both counsel. The petitioner's counsel argued that the application was an attempt to fill lacunae and was not permissible under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, especially at the stage of judgment. The respondent's counsel supported the impugned order, submitting that the court has wide discretion to allow reopening of evidence to prevent failure of justice. The High Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness at any stage, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously. The court noted that the Family Court had allowed the application subject to costs, which was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reopening of Evidence - Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC - Stage of Judgment - The court has discretion to permit reopening of evidence and examination of additional witness even after closure of evidence and final arguments, if it is necessary for just decision and not to fill lacunae or cause delay. The Family Court allowed the wife's application to examine President of Triratna Buddha Var Vadhu Suchak Mandal as additional witness, subject to costs of Rs.1000/-. Held that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error and is upheld. (Paras 2-8) B) Hindu Marriage Act - Nullity of Marriage - Sections 11 and 12 - Evidence - The husband filed petition for nullity of marriage under Sections 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife sought to examine additional witness to prove her case. The court allowed the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. Held that the Family Court's order is within its discretion and not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in allowing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to reopen evidence and examine an additional witness at the stage of judgment in a nullity of marriage petition.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court order dated 14.10.2025 allowing the respondent-wife to reopen evidence and examine an additional witness subject to costs of Rs.1000/-.
Law Points
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC allows court to recall and re-examine any witness at any stage
- including after closure of evidence and final arguments
- if necessary for just decision
- but not to fill lacunae or delay proceedings
- application must be bona fide and not abuse of process.
