BALRAJ Vs. MANNU DEVI
LAWS(J&K)-1993-8-4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on August 12,1993

BALRAJ Appellant
VERSUS
Mannu Devi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ON this reference coming up before me today, Mr. M.S. Bhat Advocate has appeared for the respondent, Mannu Devi. No body appears for the petitioner, Balraj, nor has any body appeared on 3.8.1992 on his behalf before the Registry, although vide order under reference parties had been directed to cause their appearance in the High Court on that date.
(2.)THE only point on which reference has been made is that there is no proof available on record to sustain the order under reference and also the order of the Trial Court.
(3.)THE Trial Magistrate has returned the order in Urdu and exact possible version of the same in English is as under: -
"Guardian of the minor child present. Non -applicant alongwith counsel present. Respondent has in the open court accepted that he was paying Rs.300/ - P.M. as maintenance to the applicant in the case titled Rattanbala vs Balraj. He was also ready to spend the same amount in future also. Respondent is, therefore, directed that he should pay Rs.300 - P.M. as maintenance to the applicant -child. In these circumstances this file is consigned to records. The amount of maintenance for the previous month has been given to Rattanbala in the open Court. After this month respondent shall be continuing the payment. Announced 22.7.1992."

On a birdâ„¢s eye view of this order following features become clear: -

1 - That the order has been based on admission of the respondent, Balraj:

2 - That the application for maintenance is dismissed;

3 - That the maintenance amount for preceding month has been paid in the Court.

The Trial Magistrate, as is obvious from the order, has proceeded solely on the admission of the respondent before him. The Sessions Court has, as expressed above, called it to be a case of no evidence and as such makes this reference. So the question before the Court will be whether or not a fact admitted, needs to be proved. This question is answered by section 58 of the Evidence Act which reads as under: -

"No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.