1. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel representing revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions and Sri Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing respondents in all these civil revision petitions.

2. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel representing the revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions had taken this court through the grounds which had been raised in these civil revision petitions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and inasmuch as judicious approach had not been adopted by the learned Judge and further in the light of the facts and circumstances well explained since the reliefs prayed for in these applications being highly essential for establishing the case of the revision petitioner, the dismissal of these applications cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the respective portions of the orders under challenge, the reliefs prayed for in these applications and ultimately would maintain that since these are highly essential to establish the stand taken by the revision petitioner and even if these applications are allowed inasmuch as no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petitions to be allowed.

3. Per contra, Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent in all these applications would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel also would maintain that there is no question of sending a xerox copy to an expert for the purpose of examination. Even otherwise inasmuch as these applications had been thought of by the revision petitioner only with a view to further delay the disposal of the main matter, inasmuch as these applications are not bona fide, these applications are liable to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. In the light of the facts and circumstances and also the submissions made by the senior counsel Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri Prakash Reddy, representing the parties, the following points arise for consideration in these civil revision petitions.

(1) Whether the orders under challenge in these civil revision petitions are to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case?

(2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled?

5. Point No.1:

These civil revision petitions are being disposed of by an common order, though the learned Judge of the Family Court, Hyderabad made separate orders, in view of the commonality of the questions involved in these matters and in view of the fact that these interlocutory orders were made in a matrimonial O.P.No.766 of 2001, C.R.P.No.5467 of 2007 is filed by Mrs.Neera Agarwal, wife of respondent-Mahender Kumar Agarwal, being aggrieved of an order made by the Family Court in I.A.No.563 of 2003 in O.P.No.766 of 2001 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Civil Court, Hyderabad.

6. The said application was filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying the court to send the letter, dated 05.8.1995, to a handwriting expert calling for an expert opinion with regard to handwriting contained in the said letter by comparing the same with respondent- husband's handwriting.

7. The learned Judge, after formulating the point for determination at para 6, recorded reasons and ultimately dismissed the application holding that there is no necessity for the court to send the letter, dated 05.8.1995, to handwriting expert.

8. C.R.P.No.5468 of 2007 is filed by the self same petitioner being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.753 of 2007 in O