JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 462 of 2015, "Rakesh Kandpal vs. Smt. Neelam Kandpal", whereby the application, filed by the appellant-plaintiff to compare the hand-writing of the respondent-defendant in the pages of a dairy, which was produced by the appellant-plaintiff, along with his affidavit of examination-in-chief, was dismissed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 29.11.2011; from their wedlock, one female child was born in the year, 2013. The appellant-husband filed a divorce suit against the respondent, his wife, seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty available under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that his wife had a love affair with another prior to her marriage. She agreed to marry with him under the pressure of her family members. The behavior of his wife and her parental family members is cruel towards him. They usually demanded money from him. On 15.12.2013, his wife along with his minor daughter, jewellery, cash etc, left her matrimonial house.

3. The respondent-defendant, the wife of the appellant-plaintiff, filed her written statement. She denied all these allegations of the plaintiff.

4. After settlement of the issues, the plaintiff annexed the pages of a diary with his affidavit of examination-in-chief, purporting to contain the writing of his wife, in order to prove the non-willingness of his wife regarding marriage with him. The defendant-wife in her affidavit of examination-in-chief denied all the allegations of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application to summon a hand-writing expert to compare the handwriting of his wife. The defendant filed her objection. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the said application by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned trial court dismissed the said application on the ground that the said documents were filed without giving any reason for non-filing of the documents at the appropriate stage; the plaintiff could not explain when and where from he had received the said documents; the plaintiff could not even explain why he did not make any statement, in his plaint, regarding the said documents; the decision of the suit does not depend on the proposed documents.

6. Heard Mr. Yogesh Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the copies of the documents in question, which are available on the record.

7. Mr. Yogesh Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant in his plaint mentioned the fact that the respondent had a love affair prior to the marriage with the appellant; she agreed to marry him under the pressure of her family members; the appellant filed the pages of a diary with his affidavit of examination-in-chief; the said pages of the diary were written by the respondent; the respondent denied her writing; the contents of the diary pages are clearly reflecting that the respondent got married with the appellant under the pressure of her family members; to prove his case, it is essential to obtain opinion of a handwriting expert.

8. Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with "Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies", and Order 13 deals with "Production, Impounding and Return of Documents". These related provisions read as follows:-

9. Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is quoted hereunder:-

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in