INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Husband') against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1997 passed by the District Judge, Bundi in Civil Misc. Case No.29/1989, whereby the application filed by the husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') was dismissed.
(2.) During pendency of this appeal husband submitted an application under section 151 CPC for taking on record a copy of the judgment dated 07.12.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, (Rajasthan) by which the husband was acquitted in a criminal case lodged by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') under Section 498A and 406 IPC and a copy of Criminal Complaint filed by the wife against the husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of protection of women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005. This court vide order dated 23.07.2014 treated the application filed by the husband under section 151 CPC as filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and ordered that the application under Order 41, Rule 27 would be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal.
(3.) Counsel for the husband submitted that the documents submitted along with his application are with regard to subsequent events, therefore, the same are necessary to decide the controversy involved in this appeal. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malathi Ravi, M.D. v. B.V. Ravi, M.D. reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 640 wherein para no.23 and 24 has held as under:- "23. First we intend to state the subsequent events. As has been narrated earlier, after the application of the wife was allowed granting restitution of conjugal rights, the husband communicated to her to join him, but she chose to join him immediately and thereafter went to the matrimonial home along with a relative who is a police officer. After she stayed for a brief period at the matrimonial home, she left her husband and thereafter lodged FIR No. 401/2004 on 17.10.2004 for the offences Under Sections 498A and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the husband, his mother and the sister. Because of the FIR the husband was arrested and remained in custody for a day. The ladies availed the benefit of anticipatory bail. The learned trial Magistrate, as we find, recorded a judgment of acquittal. Against the judgment of acquittal, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court after obtaining special leave which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn since in the meantime the State had preferred an appeal before the Court of Session. At this juncture, we make it absolutely clear that we will advert to the legal tenability of the judgment of acquittal as the appeal, as we have been apprised, is sub-judice. However, we take note of certain aspects which have been taken note of by the High Court and also brought on record for a different purpose. 24. The seminal question that has to be addressed is whether under these circumstances the decree for divorce granted by the High Court should be interfered with. We must immediately state that the High Court has referred to certain grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal and taken note of certain subsequent facts. We accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal which were established by way of evidence could have been pressed into service or taken aid of. But, it needs no special emphasis to state that the subsequent conduct of the wife can be taken into consideration. It settled in law that subsequent facts under certain circumstances can be taken into consideration.";