Arun Kumar Singh vs Smt Amita @ Santosh Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 7557 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arun Kumar Singh vs Smt Amita @ Santosh Singh on 4 April, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829




                                                              1                               MP-1712-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                                                    ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 1712 of 2025
                                                    ARUN KUMAR SINGH
                                                          Versus
                                                SMT AMITA @ SANTOSH SINGH
                           Appearance:
                                   Mr. Syed Momin Ali - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No.32/2015 by which right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence has been closed.

2. Petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. Respondent closed her evidence on 21.11.2022 and, thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of the petitioner's evidence. It appears that for the entire year of 2024, petitioner did not lead any evidence and, ultimately, on

21.03.2025, right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence was closed.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner was a heart patient and stent was implanted twice; first in the month of January, 2024 and second in the month of March, 2024. On 21.03.2025, petitioner was sick and he was under treatment and, therefore, he could not appear. Accordingly, prayer was made for adjournment on the ground of ailment of the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829

2 MP-1712-2025 By order dated 21.03.2025, prayer for adjournment was rejected and his right to lead defence evidence was closed. It is submitted that petitioner was seriously ill and, therefore, if he could not appear on 21.03.2025, therefore, trial Court should have accommodated the petitioner atleast once so that he can defend himself. It is further submitted that today, petitioner is present in this Court to hear the arguments.

4. Heard counsel for petitioner.

5. Although, it is the case of petitioner that stents were implanted twice i.e. first stent in the month of January, 2024 and second stent in the month of March, 2024 but it is suffice to mention here that petitioner has not filed any document to show that petitioner had undergone angioplasty twice. Only three documents have been placed on record. At page 27, there is admission

and discharge slip issued by Sahay Hospital, Kanpur. This document is not very clear but still it appears that petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 20.03.2023. The digit "23" is not very clear and it also gives an impression that it might be "25", therefore, in order to cross-check the method of writing the digits, further digits were considered and it was found that the time of admission is mentioned as 9:50 pm. "5" is clearly mentioned as "5" and it has no resemblance with digit "3". Therefore, it is clear that the date of admission which has been mentioned as 20.03 is most probably year 2023 and not 2025.

6. That is not the end of the matter. If the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, then there should be some date of discharge. If the petitioner was admitted on 20.03.2025, then concerning hospital should have

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829

3 MP-1712-2025 mentioned the date of discharge and since the date of discharge is not mentioned, then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that petitioner is still admitted in the hospital. However, according to counsel for petitioner, petitioner is present in the court. Thus, it is clear that this face sheet / admission / discharge record issued by Sahay Hospital appears to be fake or concocted / created document. This conclusion of this Court is further corroborated by the second document which is titled as "Initial Assessment Sheet" issued by Sahay Hospital. At the extreme left of medication order, date / time is clearly mentioned as 21.3.2024 whereas the doctor has put the date 21.3.2025 below his signature. How this gap of one year has occurred in the medication order could not be explained by counsel for petitioner. It appears that the date 21.3.2024 must have been mentioned by some Paramedical Staff of the concerning hospital and, therefore, in all probabilities, that is the correct date but concerning doctor, with an intention to issue the forged certificate, has deliberately mentioned the date 21.3.2025 below his signatures. Furthermore, as per this medication order, complaint was of vomiting since night, pain in abdomen. The third page is of outdoor patient record which does not disclose any ailment but it appears that it is periodical checkup. Furthermore, it is also mentioned in outdoor patient record that it is Non-MLC document. Thus, it cannot be produced in the court. Furthermore, petitioner had filed photograph before the trial Court which is mentioned in the impugned order. After perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that photograph which was filed by the petitioner before the

trial Court was nothing more than a camouflage. The trial Court has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829

4 MP-1712-2025 speciifically mentioned that petitioner is seen lying on the bed with socks, pant and shirt on his body and his B.P. etc. was being checked.

7. That is not the end of the fraud which is being played by the petitioner on the court. The petitioner has filed a copy of the ordersheets of the trial Court which starts from date of institution of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is up to 21.11.2023 when respondent closed her evidence. Petitioner has deliberately not filed the subsequent ordersheets and it is clearly with an intention to hide his efforts of getting the matter delayed. The solitary intention of the petitioner in not filing the subsequent order is to suppress the fact that on how many occasions, petitioner had sought time to lead the evidence. Furthermore, from the impugned order, it is clear that case was fixed for recording of defence evidence on 06.12.2023. From thereafter, multiple opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence and on various occasions, last opportunities were also granted but he did not lead evidence. Thereafter, on 24.01.2025, specific order was passed by the trial Court that in case if the petitioner does not remain present on 21.02.2025 and does not pay the arrears of maintenance amount to the respondent, then right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence would be closed. Inspite of that, petitioner did not appear on 21.02.2025. Even on 21.02.2025, trial Court did not close the right of the petitioner inspite of the fact that by order dated 24.01.2025, a clear warning was given that in case if the petitioner fails to appear on 21.02.2025 and fails to pay the arrears of maintenance amount, then his right would be closed. Once again, by adopting sympathetic view, another date i.e.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829

5 MP-1712-2025 21.03.2025 was given for leading evidence and for payment of arrears of maintenance amount. Even then petitioner did not hesitate in making an attempt to adopt the dilatory tactics and sent a photograph in which it was shown that he was lying on the bed with shirt and pant on his body and only his B.P. was being checked. Even otherwise, this Court has also considered three pages of medical prescription which have been filed by the petitioner and this Court has come to the conclusion that those documents are forged one.

8. Considering the misadventurous act of the petitioner in not leading evidence, considering the fact that inspite of the repeated directions, he did not pay the arrears of maintenance amount as well as considering the fact that although petitioner was seriously ill for giving evidence but he became hale and hearty to hear the arguments in this case and came to this court, it is clear that petitioner was deliberately trying to delay the proceedings which have been initiated against him under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, trial court did not commit any mistake by closing the right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence.

9. At this stage, it is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that case is fixed on 05.04.2025 for delivery of judgment.

10. Under these circumstances, application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7829

6 MP-1712-2025 AKS