IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.
Smita Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Uma Shankar Singh – Opposite Party
C.M.P. No.163 of 2024
Decided On : 16-08-2024
ORDER :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.
1. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-2, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.696 of 2017 whereby and whereunder two petitions filed for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Limited, have been ordered to be marked as Ext.-3.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the instant petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :
The petitioner and Opp. Party are wife and husband respectively and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a son on 19.2.2023 at Jamshedpur.
3. After the marriage, differences arose between the parties to the extent that the Opp. Party has chosen to file an application u/s 13(i) and 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage in which the petitioner has filed her written statement, stating inter alia that she believes in marital adjustment and compromise in marital life and she still wants a peaceful conjugal life for the wellbeing of her minor son, who is suffering from disease pertaining to nervous system and is prone and allergic to cough and cold and requires regular physiotherapy. Despite knowing this fact the Opp. Party, who is having a handsome earning, does not want to spend a single penny either on her or his son.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of giving her best efforts for resuming the conjugal life, she failed and the original matrimonial suit filed by the Opp. Party for divorce proceeded and at the fag end i.e. when the matter was fixed for argument, two petitions have been filed by the Opp. Party u/s 14 of the Family Courts Act, one for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and second one for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Ltd. along with its annexures.
5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner for not allowing the same but the same has been allowed vide order dated 18.09.2023 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur without appreciating the grounds stated by the petitioner and the case is fixed for final argument, against which the present petition has been filed.
6. It is apparent from the factual aspect that the dispute arising out and going on under the Family Courts Act, 1984, two petitions have been filed for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Limited by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The learned court has allowed the said petitions against which the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
7. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the exhibit which has been marked as Ext.3 is without compliance of the requirement as stipulated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Unamended).
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through his submission.
9. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid ground, needs to refer herein the purport of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as has been enumerated in its preamble which needs to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :-
“An Act to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith.”
10. It is evident from the aforesaid preamble that the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been enacted for the expeditious disposal of the matrimonial disputes wherein the provision has been carved out to consider the admissibility of the document as under Section 14 thereof. The Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads hereunder as :-
“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 effectual
Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi
Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena
AI
The Family Courts Act, 1984 allows for the admissibility of evidence that assists in resolving matrimonial disputes, overriding other laws including the Indian Evidence Act.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross abuses of jurisdiction, not mere errors of law or fact.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the principles governing the exercise of such ....
(1)Award ofMaintenance Pendente Lite – No appeal against an order passed as an interlocutory order can be filed under Section 19 of Family Court’s Act and petition under Article 227 of Constitution o....
An interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; thus, Article 227 is the appropriate remedy.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.