Back
ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Pravin – Appellant
Versus
Pooja – Respondent
ORDER :
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Heard Mr. S.B. Solanke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 23.1.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Osmanabad, below Exhs. 52 and 55, respectively in Petition No. A-216/2021 filed by the petitioner for divorce.
3. The divorce petition is at the stage of the evidence of the respondent/wife. During the cross examination of the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband wanted to show a video clip to the respondent/wife and therefore, the application at Exh. 52 was filed by the petitioner for production of the electronic record i.e. pen drive. The said application was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 25.10.2023 by observing that the contents of the pen-drive were nowhere pleaded by the petitioner and the said evidence is without pleading.
4. Again the petitioner approached the Family Court by filing application below Exh. 55 with a specific prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to show a video recording from the pen drive to refresh the memory of the witness and ask further questions to the respondent/wife during her cross exam
A party cannot introduce documents for cross-examination without prior pleading, and electronic evidence must meet admissibility criteria under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
A person summoned to produce a document under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act does not become a witness and cannot be cross examined unless and until called as a witness.
A party to a suit cannot be equated with a witness.
(1) Witnesses and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on same footing.(2) Production of documents for both a party to suit and a witness as the ca....
The court reaffirmed the necessity of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of evidence prese....
The court upheld the denial of video evidence in cross-examination due to non-compliance with disclosure rules and failure to provide an authenticity certificate as required under Section 65B of the ....
Documents can be directly produced at the stage of cross-examination of a witness, without seeking prior leave of the Court, as established in the case of Mohammed abdul Wahid S/o Late Dr. Mohammed a....
The court affirmed that missing documents may be submitted at later stages in trials to avoid undue delays, emphasizing rights of the accused are safeguarded by allowing challenges to evidentiary val....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
