The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4084 of 2025 Subhra Misra & Anr. ..... -versus- Om Brahmabid Mishra ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Ms.Deepali Mahapatra Opp. Party Represented By Adv. – Ms.Sailabala Jena CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 27.11.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The Petitioners before this Court are the Petitioners in CRP No.32 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in a proceeding for a maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C read with section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent power of this court to challenge the order dated 12.08.2025 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri thereby rejecting the petition of the Petitioners dated 21.07.2025 to recall the P.W.1 (Petitioner No.1) for her further examination in order to exhibit the documents as per the list on her behalf. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Page 1 of 12. counsel for the sole Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto and the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 at Annexure-8. 4. The case of the Petitioner, bereft of all unnecessary details, is that the Petitioner No.1 married the sole-Opposite Party on 17.02.2017 as per Hindu customs and rights. Out of such wedlock, the Petitioner No.2 was born. After the marriage, they both were residing together for some time. Thereafter, due to a matrimonial discord and, as per the allegation of the Petitioner No.1 that she was being tortured by the Opposite Party, the Petitioners are residing separately from the Opposite Party. In the year 2022, the Petitioner No.1, who claims to be a destitute lady, filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In her application for grant of maintenance, the Petitioner No.1 has described that she is a helpless lady who is facing financial crisis rendering her unable to maintain herself and her child i.e. the Petitioner No.2. She has further stated that she was physically tortured and harassed by her husband- Opposite Party. As a result, she came back to her patrimonial house in Puri and she has been staying there with her daughter along with her widowed mother. In her application, she has further disclosed that her husband-the sole Opposite Party was gainfully employed in a PSU of Indian Railways at Bengaluru at the time of marriage. Thereafter, he was transferred to Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party did not take proper care of the Petitioners and was not bothered about the well-being of the Petitioners. It has also been stated by the Petitioner No.1 that while she was pregnant, in the year 2017, she was abused and assaulted Page 2 of 12. by her husband. When the father of the Petitioner No.1 came to know about such fact, he could not digest the same and, as a result of shock, the father of the Petitioner No.1 died an untimely death. Eventually, when the torture became unbearable, she left her matrimonial home and came to her paternal house and, since that date, she has been staying there along with her daughter and widowed mother. 5. Since the Petitioner No.1 had no sufficient means to look after herself as well as her daughter, she was compelled to file the application seeking maintenance in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. It has also been stated that although she has done LLM and has enrolled herself as a lawyer in the year 2015, however, she does not have any practice to sustain herself and her daughter. Under such financial crisis and compulsion and without any financial assistance and support from her husband, she was compelled to approach the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri seeking maintenance. 6. In the pending section 125 Cr.P.C proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri, the pleadings from both sides were concluded and, the hearing of the case started. The Petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 in this case. Although the evidence from the side of the Petitioner No.1 was closed, it was later on realised that she has not produced certain material evidence on record which would have a bearing on the final outcome of the trial. Such evidence is also required for a just decision of the case. Accordingly, an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C was moved from the side of the Petitioner No.1. A copy of such application has been annexed to the present application as Page 3 of 12. Annexure-6. In her application dated 21.07.2025 which has been filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C read with 137 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to recall the Petitioner No.1 for her re- examination and cross-examination, it has been clearly stated that the case was posted for argument and while preparing for the final argument, learned counsel for the petitioners found that certain documents which are necessary and relevant like the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1, letter dated 20.08.2024 issued by the UCO Bank, Branch Manager as well as certificate of enrolment issued by the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack could not be filed inadvertently and brought on record. Furthermore, it has also been stated that such documents are relevant and necessary for a just adjudication of the dispute involved in the CRP application. 7. An objection by the Opposite Party-Respondent to the abovenoted petition was filed on 21.07.2025. In the objection, the Opposite Party has categorically taken a stand that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C to recall the Petitioner No.1 for her further cross-examination does not fall within guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Additionally, it has also been alleged that the very intention behind the filing of an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 is to somehow prolong the pending proceeding. The Opposite Party has further alleged that such documents are not relevant for a just decision of the case. On such ground, the Opposite Party objected to the petition filed at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 to recall her for her further cross-examination and to exhibit certain documents. The learned Judge, Family Court, Puri by its detailed order dated 12.08.2025 considered the application of the Petitioners Page 4 of 12. dated 21.07.2025 and, finally, a part of the prayer with regard to furnishing the enrolment certificate issued by the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack was allowed. Whereas, the prayer with regard to exhibiting the bank account statement of the Petitioner No.1 was rejected. Being aggrieved such order, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application.
Legal Reasoning
8. Ms.Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the learned trial court has committed an illegality by allowing only a part of the prayer made by the Petitioner No.1 in her petition dated 21.07.2025 by virtue of his order dated 12.08.2025. She further contended that although the prayer to recall the Petitioner No.1 was allowed, however, the same was restricted to only exhibiting the enrolment certificate issued by the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack. Whereas, the prayer with regard to exhibiting the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1’s account were turned down by the learned trail court. Underlining the admissibility of the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that such bank statement issued by a Nationalized Bank and being a public document is admissible in evidence. Moreover, to establish the relevancy of such evidence, she submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the dispute involved in the pending application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri, i.e. regarding grant of maintenance to the Petitioners, the income of both sides are to be fairly considered by the learned trial court before awarding maintenance to the Petitioners. As such, to establish the financial distressful condition of the Petitioners in the trial, the bank statements are required to be exhibited so that the Page 5 of 12. learned trial court can take into consideration the financial strength and capacity of the Petitioners while passing the final order with regard to the maintenance. She further contended that although an affidavit has been filed by both sides indicating their assets and liabilities before the learned trial court, however, to ascertain the income of the parties, the learned trial court is required to verify the bank statement of the parties, Thus, the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1 could not have labelled as an irrelevant document or that the same is unnecessary to determine/ assess the income of the Petitioner No.1. 9. In course of her argument, Ms.Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, further submitted that the Opposite Party, in his objection before the learned trial court, has alleged that the Petitioner No.1 is financially sound and that she has purchased a piece of land out of her own income. The copy of the sale deed which is at Annexure-5 is stated to have been filed before the learned trial court. Further, referring to the written statement filed on behalf of Petitioner No.1 before the learned trial court, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that before this court through the written statement an attempt has been made by the respondent to paint a picture of the Petitioner No.1 as a person who is financially sound and stable and that out of her own income she has acquired assets. To counter the aforesaid assertion of the respondent, she further contended that the documents which are said to be introduced through the Petitioner No.1 are very much relevant for the case and that the further examination of the Petitioner No.1 is essential for the just decision of the case. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Page 6 of 12. impugned order dated 12.08.2025 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same be modified and the Petitioner No.1 be recalled to adduce further evidence in terms of the petition dated 21.07.2025 at Annexure-6. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party on the other hand resisted the prayer made by the Petitioners in the present application. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the Opposite party contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality by passing order dated 12.08.2025 on the petition of the Petitioners dated 21.07.2025. She further contended that the learned trial court, after a detailed examination of the materials sought to be introduced by the Petitioner No.1 at a belated stage, has permitted the Petitioner No.1 to introduce the enrolment certificate issued by the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack. So far the other prayer of the Petitioner No.1 with regard to exhibiting the bank statement is concerned, learned counsel for the Opposite Party contended that after a detailed analysis of such document, learned trial court has come to a conclusion that such bank statement may not be relevant for a just and fair adjudication of the dispute pending before the learned trial court. She further argued that by filing this application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C, the Petitioner No.1 has made an attempt to prolong the final adjudication of the pending application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. She further contended that the learned trial court, after a thorough scrutiny of the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C as well as the objection filed by the respondent, has passed a reasoned order which would not eventually cause any prejudice to either side. On such ground, learned counsel for the Page 7 of 12. Opposite Party contended that the application filed at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 challenging a well-reasoned order dated 12.08.2025 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be rejected at the threshold. 11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions, further on a close scrutiny of the background facts as well as the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, this Court observes that the order dated 12.08.2025 has been assailed by the Petitioner No.1 only to the extent that her prayer to introduce as an exhibit her bank statement has been rejected by the learned trial court. In the present application, the adjudication is confined to the validity of the order dated 12.08.2025 thereby refusing a part of the prayer as has been indicated hereinabove. 12. On a careful analysis of the entire factual background of the present case, this court found that the wife and the minor daughter of the Opposite Party have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C claiming maintenance on the ground of their distressful financial condition. Such application is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. After closure of the evidence of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C to introduce and to exhibit certain documents including the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1. Such prayer having been rejected partly vide order dated 12.08.2025, the Petitioner No.1 has approached this Court by filing the present application. To test the validity of order dated 12.08.2025, this Court is required to examine as to whether the Page 8 of 12. bank statement of the Petitioner No.1 is a relevant document in a case which involves grant of maintenance to the Petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the relevancy of such documents is also to be assessed in the background of the fact that the respondent has taken a specific stand that the Petitioner No.1 is financially sound and stable and that she has acquired a landed property out of her own income. 13. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C confers a power on the learned trial court to summon any material witness at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The provision contained in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C could be categorised in two parts. The first part of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is a discretion vested with the trial court to summon any witness at any stage of the trial. The first part of the section is qualified by the rider in the second part of the section that such witness can be summoned provided their evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is clear that such condition precedent to summon any witness, at any stage, is mandatory in nature and the learned trial court can exercise its discretionary power to summon any material witness at any stage of the trial subject to satisfaction of such condition precedent only. Such classification is evident from the provision contained in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and by the use of the words “may” and “shall” at two different stages of the same provision. From such analysis it is very clear that though the power conferred upon the trial courts to summon any witness at any stage is very wide and discretionary, however such power has to be exercised subject to the satisfaction of the court exercising such power that the evidence of such witness is essential to the just decision of the case. Page 9 of 12. 14. Though the phrase “just decision” has not been specifically defined in the statute, the same is to be understood by its common meaning. The phrase “just decision of the case” implies a balanced approach to be adopted by the court while exercising such power. When the learned trial court, upon examination of the relevance of evidence of a particular witness, comes to a conclusion that that to ascertain the truth of the matter such witness is required to be examined in a particular scenario, the courts should not hesitate to exercise such discretion to recall any witness, at any stage. The sole objective while exercising the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C should be to unearth the truth of the matter by examining whatever materials comes in the way of the court during trial of the case. Moreover, any delay caused due to examination/ re- examination/ cross-examination of the witness, whose evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, would not stand in the way of the learned trial court exercising its discretion. 15. In the factual background of the present case, the application which was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 to recall herself to introduce certain documents are to be examined and tested on the touchstone of whether the same is essential to the just decision of the case. It is also apt to mention here that the learned trial court should not jump to a conclusion prematurely at the stage of examining the relevancy of the evidence of the witness sought to be recalled. On the contrary, the learned trial court is required to see as to whether the evidence of such witness has some nexus with the dispute involved in the trial and whether by accepting such evidence the learned trial court would get assistance in arriving at the ultimate truth of the matter. Page 10 of 12. In the present case, taking into consideration the fact that a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C was being adjudicated by the learned trial court, the learned trial court was required to ascertain as to whether the Petitioners are at all entitled to any maintenance, and if so, what should be the quantum of such compensation. Weighing the evidence sought to be introduced from the aforesaid perspective, this Court is of the view that the bank statement of the Petitioner No.1, who is claiming maintenance before the court below, is definitely a relevant document that is essential to the just decision of the case. Moreover, the grounds taken on behalf of the respondent pale in comparison to the pressing necessity of the Petitioners’ claim for maintenance on the ground of their distressful financial condition. 16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has committed an illegality by not allowing the Petitioner No.1 to exhibit her bank statement while permitting the further examination the Petitioner No.1 in respect of other documents such as the enrolment certificate issued by the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the learned trial court’s order dated 12.08.2025, to the extent the prayer of the Petitioners to exhibit the bank statement has been rejected, is unsustainable in law and, as such, the same is hereby set aside. While allowing this application, this Court further directs the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri to permit the Petitioner No.1 to exhibit the bank statement as has been prayed for in her application dated 21.07.2025 along with other documents which has been permitted to be exhibited vide order dated 12.08.2025. Page 11 of 12. 17. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands allowed. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Page 12 of 12. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Dec-2025 17:54:19