Aloka Pati Tripaty vs Ram Kumar Pati

Re:C.A.N. 3474 of 2017

This is an application by the appellant/wife under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this application she wants to admit in evidence

a letter dated 25th March, 2014 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Nodal Officer of R.T.I, Purba Midnapur in answer to a

query under the S.D. Right to Information Act made by the appellant. The contents of this letter are as follows:

“Government of West Bengal Office of the Superintendent of Police Purba Medinipur Memo No. RTI-08/02/14 1064/E Date: 25/03/2014

To

Aloka Pati(Tripathy) W/O Ramkamal Pati Vill- Madhupur Post-Sadikpur PS-Ramnagar Dist-Purba Mediniur Sub: Information under RTI Act-2005

With reference to your application dated on 06.02.2014 received in this office on 17.02.2014 under RTI Act, 2005, you are hereby informed that as

per record of the service book of Shri Ramkamal Pati of Purba Medinipur district it is observed that he did not avail any earned leave (E.L) or

Commuted leave during April-2006. No record pertaining to CL finds mention in service book. Deputy Superintendent of Police(HQ), Nodal Officer

of RTI Purba Medinipur.’’

She wants to tender in evidence this letter in proof of her assertion that the parties did not get married on 15th April, 2016 and that they got married on

15th April, 2017. If she is able to prove this fact, she will be able to throw out the entire proceedings on the ground that the suit was premature and

instituted before expiry of two years from the date of marriage. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the appellant relies upon Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) of the

Code of Civil Procedure to introduce this document at the appellate stage. We insert the said Section as under:

“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether

oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if- (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to

enable it to pronounce judgement, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or

witness to be examined.â€​

What the appellant/wife wants to prove through this document is that the respondent husband was working on the alleged date of marriage on 15th

April, 2006. First of all it is, a piece of circumstantial evidence. It is not convincing proof of the fact that he was working from a particular time upto a

particular time on a particular date. It is neither the original of any primary document nor a certified copy thereof. Nonetheless the document may be

relevant in evidence. The place of marriage was some 300 kms. from the place of his work it is stated. We have found that after consideration of both

oral and documentary evidence the learned Judge of the Court below has been able to reach the finding that the date when the parties got married

was indeed 15th April, 2006 and has decreed the suit being satisfied about the allegation of desertion.

We do not think that the document sought to be adduced in evidence by the appellant is so important or substantial from the point of view of evidence

that we have to admit it straightway. This Court will only be able to take a decision whether to admit the said document dated 25th March, 2014 during

the course of hearing of the appeal, upon consideration of the other evidence relied on by the learned trial Judge. In those circumstances, the present

application (C.A.N. 3474 of 2017) is disposed of with the observation that the court might admit the letter dated 25th March, 2014 together with any

other document which the court might think fit and proper at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

Re:C.A.N.10559 of 2017

The appellant/wife is getting alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.4,500/- p.m. on the basis that the respondent/husband’s net salary was

Rs.22,000/- p.m. In this application for enhancement of alimony made by the appellant/wife, Mr. Banerjee submits that now according to the

information derived by his client under the Right to Information Act the net salary of the husband is little over Rs.29,000/- p.m. Mr. Bhattacharjee

admits the increase in the salary of his client but disputes the amount.

Having considered all the factors like inflation, increase in the need of the wife and the increase in the salary of the husband we increase the alimony

pendente lite to Rs.6,000/- p.m. to be paid at the said rate from July, 2018 until further orders. The amount or the differential amount for July, 2018

may be paid by 15th July, 2018. The alimony amount shall be paid by the 7th of each month. This application (C.A.N.10559 of 2017) is thus disposed

of.