SAILESH CHANDRAKANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are husband and wife. They have filed this c. R. P. No. against the order passed by the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, dismissing their application I. A. S. R. No. 9671 of 1998 to receive the affidavit of the second petitioner in substitution of her oral evidence.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this C. R. P. are as followed. THE petitioners filed a joint petition H. M. O. P. No. 21 of 1998 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. THEreafter, the first petitioner was ready to submit himself for an oral evidence on the expiry of the six months period prescribed under Section 13-B, whereas, the second petitioner was not available for giving evidence in the enquiry. Hence, both of them filed affidavits. THE second petitioner prayed to receive the affidavit in substitution of her oral evidence. THE learned Judge rejected that application. THE C. R. P. is against this order.