- (1.) P. P. Gupta, J. This is a revision, filed by Shahnawaz Akhtar, against the order dated 20-3-1991 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azam-garh, rejecting the application of the accused-revisionist and directing the prosecution to produce Rabiya Khatun, the wife of the revisionist, as a prose cution witness.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist was heard at length at the stage of admission. THE only ground pressed before me was that in view of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, the wife of the revisionist, Smt. Rabiya Khatun, cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to her during marriage. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this case, are that Smt. Rabiya Khatun had a daughter from her previous husband, Ayub Ansari. After seeking divorce from him, she was remarried to the present revisionist. From her previous wedlock she had a daughter, viz. Rajiya Khatun, who was living with her. Allegedly, the present revisionist committed the murder of Rajiya Khatun. A F. I. R. was lodged by her on 13-7-1988, which is Annexure 'i' to the affidavit of the revisionist. The revi sionist is facing trial for the murder of Rajiya Khatun. During the trial, the accused-revisionist moved an application before the trial court protesting the examination of his wife, Smt. Rabjya Khatun, as a prosecution witness. The said application has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the accused-revisionist has filed this revision, Section 122 of the Evidence Act lays down that no person, who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.;