K.MOHAN RAM,J

1. The appellant in both the above appeals is the wife of the respondent.

2. The appellant filed O.P.No.1213 of 1997 against the respondent herein before the Principal Family Court, Chennai under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce from the respondent on the ground of mental cruelty. Pending the aforesaid original petition, the respondent herein filed O.P.No.115 of 1999 before the same Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the wife – appellant herein had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause.

3. Before the Family Court, the appellant herein was examined as PW1 and she was cross examined by the respondent. The respondent/husband did not enter into the witness box. Except the marriage invitation card, which is marked as ExP1 by the appellant herein, no other documents have been marked on either side.

4. By an common order dated 2.9.2003, the Court below dismissed O.P.No.1213 of 1997 and allowed O.P.No.115 of 1999 and being aggrieved by that, the wife has filed the aforesaid two appeals. In O.P.No.1213 of 1997, the respondent filed I.A. No.1292 of 1999 seeking custody of the child and the wife/ appellant herein filed I.A.No.1327 of 1999 under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a direction to the respondent herein to return the articles as per the list appended to the affidavit filed in support of the said application, namely, gold ornaments, silverware, furniture, kitchen utensils and seven items of original title deeds. By the said common order, the above said two interim applications also came to be dismissed.

5. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant filed a petition in C.M.P.No.607 of 2011 under Order VIII Rule 22 of the Appellate Side Rules seeking to receive the additional documents enclosed in the compilation of papers.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is stated that before their daughter became a major, the respondent fraudulently mortgaged the property at Tenali bought by the appellant's father in Sravanthi's name and usurped the mortgage money for his personal activities. The respondent even stooped to the level of using their minor daughter's photograph to fabricate a mortgage deed and had mortgaged the property to one Mr.Katta Vijayakumar on 23.9.2009. The consideration for such mortgage is seen to have been made by way of cheque. A complaint in this regard has been filed by the appellant herein and the same is pending. The above referred fraudulent acts of the respondent came to light only in October 2010. Therefore, the appellant preferred the above petition seeking leave of this Court to accept the petition to receive additional documents that are material and important in the above proceedings.

8. In the affidavit, the appellant has referred to the letter of the appellant dated 12.1.2011 to the respondent, the returned cover, the reply by the respondent, another letter by the appellant dated 20.1.2011 to the respondent and the returned cover. Since all the documents have come into existence after disposal of the original petitions and contending that the same have got some relevance to decide the question of mental cruelty, the appellant seeks to produce the same as additional evidence.

9. Though the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit to the said petition, learned counsel for the respondent seriously objected for the documents to be received as additional evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the mortgage deed has absolutely no relevance to decide the issue of mental cruelty alleged by the appellant. As far as the letters said to have been written by the appellant and the reply said to have been written by the respondent and also the returned covers are concerned, as the same were not admitted by the respondent, oral evidence is necessary to test the veracity of the same and as to whether