Repeated Defaults in Producing Witnesses Despite Opportunities Is a Conscious Act; Consequences Must Follow: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"Court Cannot Wait Till Eternity", In a significant reiteration of procedural discipline in matrimonial litigation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on January 1, 2026, dismissed a petition challenging the Family Court’s decision to close a woman’s right to lead evidence in a pending domestic violence matter. In Supreety Jagota v. Hepesh Jagota (CMPMO No. 232 of 2024), Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that "Courts are not required to wait indefinitely for a party to lead evidence" and that laxity despite repeated opportunities warrants consequences in law.

The Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, refused to interfere with the Family Court’s order dated 24.04.2024, which had closed the petitioner-wife’s evidence after multiple adjournments and persistent non-production of witnesses.

The petitioner had filed proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, invoking relief under Sections 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act.

False Plea of Non-Payment of Maintenance Exposed: “Palpably False Ground Cannot Justify Adjournment”

The petitioner had sought adjournment on the ground that the respondent-husband had not paid her the awarded maintenance, and additionally cited medical treatment. However, upon judicial scrutiny, the Court categorically held that this plea was devoid of merit. Justice Negi noted that “the plea of non-payment of maintenance raised for seeking adjournment on 19.04.2024 is palpably false.”

Referring to the appellate proceedings and maintenance orders previously passed, the Court observed that the husband had, in fact, cleared arrears amounting to ₹16,80,000 up to November 2024 and was regularly paying the ₹30,000 monthly maintenance fixed by the appellate court. This assertion was supported by affidavit and payment details placed on record.

The Family Court had previously granted maintenance at the rate of ₹40,000 per month, but the Sessions Court, while partially allowing an appeal, modified the same to ₹30,000 covering both the petitioner and her children. It was found that the respondent had complied with this modified order in full.

No Indefinite Leeway in Procedure: "It is a Conscious Act Not to Lead Evidence"

The High Court gave detailed attention to the procedural timeline and noted that despite several adjournments between December 2023 and April 2024, the petitioner failed to produce even a single witness. Importantly, on multiple occasions—20.03.2024, 09.04.2024 and 19.04.2024—the petitioner was directed to ensure presence of witnesses on her own responsibility. However, no compliance was made.

Quoting its own precedent in Shamsher Singh v. Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298, the Court held:

“If a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity... It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party.”

Justice Negi thus concluded that the Family Court’s order did not suffer from arbitrariness or legal infirmity, and instead demonstrated sound procedural reasoning.

Scope of Article 227: Supervisory Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Appeal

On the core constitutional question, the Court reaffirmed the restrained ambit of Article 227. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, the High Court noted that interference under Article 227 is justified only in cases of:

• Perversity
• Miscarriage of justice
• Violation of fundamental legal principles
• Grave dereliction of duty

Mere disagreement with the trial court’s procedural decisions or a desire to reopen opportunity cannot attract the writ court’s correctional jurisdiction.

Justice Negi stated:

“This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it under Article 227... reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible.”

No Merit in Petition, Procedural Discipline Upheld

Finding no justification to interfere with the Family Court’s discretion, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order closing the petitioner’s evidence. It also directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 16.01.2026 for further proceedings.

The ruling underscores that matrimonial litigation, particularly under the Domestic Violence Act, must adhere to procedural rigour, and courts will not tolerate deliberate delays disguised as grievances.

Date of Decision: 01 January 2026