Srinagar, Oct 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has allowed a woman to lead additional evidence concerning her husband’s alleged second marriage, holding that the material could be relevant to her defence in an ongoing matrimonial dispute.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on September 26, 2026, partly allowed a petition filed by Mangat Ram challenging an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu.
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision permitting Shano Devi to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani and to recall Mangat Ram for further examination. However, it set aside directions to recall two other witnesses and quashed ₹10,000 in costs imposed on Mangat Ram.
The matrimonial dispute arose from Mangat Ram’s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage on grounds including desertion, alleged non-compliance with a decree under Section 9 and cruelty.
After completion of evidence and when the case was listed for final arguments, Shano Devi sought recall of Mangat Ram and three witnesses, besides permission to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani. She claimed to have recently learnt that Mangat Ram had allegedly married Laxmi Devi while his first marriage was subsisting and that they had a daughter, Priya Rani.
She produced documents including Priya Rani’s Aadhaar card, which showed Mangat Ram as her father and carried the same residential address. She also relied on a petition filed by Priya Rani under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a marriage agreement concerning Priya Rani and Raman Kumar, both recording Mangat Ram as her father.
Mangat Ram argued that the alleged second marriage was not newly discovered, citing an earlier complaint filed by Shano Devi under Section 494 of the RPC. The High Court, however, noted that the earlier complaint concerned an alleged marriage with Bholi Devi, not Laxmi Devi, and therefore did not establish prior knowledge of the present allegation.
Justice Dhar observed that if the alleged second marriage is established, it could have a bearing on whether Shano Devi was justified in not joining Mangat Ram and could also provide a defence to the allegation of cruelty.
The court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, noting that recall of witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC must be exercised sparingly, while Section 151 CPC permits reopening of evidence in appropriate cases where it is relevant and necessary in the interests of justice.
The High Court found Mangat Ram’s recall justified but held that recalling Sansar Chand and Prem Nath was unnecessary, as both had already stated that they had no knowledge of the alleged second marriage.
It also quashed the ₹10,000 costs, observing that the alleged marriage with Laxmi Devi had not yet been established and that concealment could not be presumed at this stage.
The petition was accordingly partly allowed, with the Family Court directed to proceed in accordance with the High Court’s observations.
Make the legal ruling clearerSharpen the opening and headline