The Family Courts Act allows the Family Court to receive evidence that may assist in dealing with a dispute, irrespective of its admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Pune rejecting application dated 18th August 2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner wife, by which the petitioner had prayed that the documents produced by her (Exhibits 198 and 292) along with her application being medical bills, receipts issued by the school authorities, prescriptions, medical receipts, hospital discharge card, x ray reports etc. be exhibited in the proceedings. This application was contested by respondent husband contending that before these documents are exhibited, the documents are required to be proved by the petitioner by examining the author of the documents or such appropriate witnesses. The learned Judge of the Family Court considering rival pleas and treating those documents as electronic evidence falling within the purview of the provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, has rejected the said application by the impugned order. A review application against the said order was also rejected.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in assailing the impugned order, contends that there is an apparent error in the Family Court passing the impugned order in as much as the purport of the provisions of section 14 of the Family Courts Act has been completely overlooked in applying the provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is a provision dealing with a proof of electronic record namely, bills, receipts, etc., generated by computers. It is submitted that in view of the specific provisions of section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the contention that the document first is required to be proved before the same is exhibited ought not to be accepted. It is submitted that Family Courts Act is a special Act and the Evidence Act is the general law and thus, Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not applicable when it comes to relevancy and admissibility of documents in the proceedings before the Family Court, considering the provisions of section 14 of the Family Courts Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside by directing the Family Court to exhibit the documents as sought to be produced.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent would also not dispute the above legal propositions. He would however submit that on proper application of section 14 of the Family Courts Act, acceptability of the evidence on these document be left to be decided by the Family Court. He submits that this Court may also consider the effect of section 14 of the Family Courts Act on such applications.

5. Having considered the submissions as urged on behalf of the parties, it is quite clear that the proceeding before the Family Court would stand on a different footing from the proceeding before the regular Civil Courts where the rigour of the provisions of the Evidence Act are fully applicable for the Civil Court to evaluate the evidence on preponderance of probabilities and for that matter even the proof of electronic record. It is apposite to examine the provisions of section 14 of the Family Courts Act which reads as under:

"14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. A plain reading of the above provision clearly indicates that the intention of the legislature is to permit the Family Court to receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter which in its opinion would assist the Family Court to deal effectually with a dispute irrespective of whether the same would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Significantly the words "Whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admiss