The provision of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to the Family Court in view of Section 14 of the Family Court Act.

M.S. Ramesh, J.

The order under challenge is the revision of one of the documents which the petitioner intended to mark under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the e-mails which she sought to produce before the Family Court evidences certain averments touching upon the petitioner's relationship with another women and as such, it becomes relevant since certain allegation of cruelty has been pleaded in the petition. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court is not correct in relying upon Section 65(D) of the Indian Evidence Act for refusing to mark the e-mails in the absence of certificates contemplated therein. By relying upon the Judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2018 passed in C.R.P. No. 2418 of 2018, the counsel submitted that the order rejecting her request to mark the e-mails is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the divorce petition is filed by him and that the petitioner cannot rely upon certain e-mails to establish her allegations against the respondent herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the e-mails which the petitioner intends to mark are prior to the marriage and has absolutely no relevance to the present case. The learned counsel strongly opposed the contents of the e-mails and submitted that there are imputations in the e-mails to implicate the petitioner of an immoral conduct. The learned counsel by relying on the reasoning of the Court below in rejecting the petitioner's request to mark the documents submitted that, while analysing the relevancy of the documents, the discretion vested with the Family Court under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act should not be interfered into. As such, the learned counsel submitted that there was no infirmity in the order of the Family Court rejecting the petitioner's request to mark the e-mails.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

5. On perusal of the order passed by the Family Court, it is seen that the petitioner had sought for marking five documents in the petition, out of which, document Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alone have been permitted. However, on a overall reading of the entire order, it is seen that the intention of the Family Court was to allow document No. 5 also which is a photograph of the respondent herein. As such, the omission of the document No.5 in the said order seems to be an inadvertent mistake. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that he has no objection if the photograph of the respondent is permitted to be marked.

6. Insofar as the marking of the e-mails are concerned, the only reasoning of the Family Court is that there is a bar under Section 65(D) of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the same, the permission was refused.

7. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, empowers the Family Court to receive in evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually irrespective of the fact as to whether the same is admissible under Indian Evidence Act or not.

8. The Family Court Act has an overriding effect over the other Acts in view of the Section 20. The trial Court by relying upon the two Judgments of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court has rejected the petitioner's request for marking the documents, which judgments are based on the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

9. In view of Section 14 of the Family Court, such a reliance may not be proper. Though the discretion is granted for the Family Court to admit or reject such a document in the instant case, the document could very well be marked. If the respondent herein is permitted to raise the objections, such objections may be considered at the time of arguments. As such, the reasoning of the Family Court that the certificate contemplated under Section 65(D) of the Indian Evidence act has not been obtained, has no legal basis.

1