IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In every case, necessarily Court cannot come to conclusion that secondary evidence is not genuine and not bona fide.
(2) By mechanical process Photostat Machine ensures creation of true and correct copy – Document sought to be produced can be presumed to be true and correct copy of original document.

ORDER

Petitioner in HMOP filed the above revision against the order dated 07.03.2022 in I.A.No.408 of 2021 in HMOP No.140 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

2. Petitioner filed HMOP No.140 of 2017 under Section 12(1)(b) r/w Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act to annul the marriage of petitioner with respondent dated 26.03.2016 etc.

3. The main ground, on which, the petitioner is seeking annulment of marriage is that respondent is suffering from mental disorder and the same was suppressed. Apart from other contentions, petitioner specifically contended that mental condition of respondent was deteriorating day by day; that respondent became maniac and she told to petitioner that he is suffering from psychiatric problem; that petitioner took the respondent to Dr. Rohan, psychiatrist in Yenepoya Medical College and the doctor advised the respondent for admission into hospital for treatment; that respondent was admitted into hospital as inpatient in psychiatrist department; that on 14.10.2017 morning, respondent without intimation to petitioner and hospital staff, absconded from the hospital for some hours; that petitioner explained the situation to father of respondent, who is at hospital and on the same day father of respondent, got the respondent discharged from the hospital and took her to Tirupati; that at the time of admitting the respondent in the hospital, the hospital authorities have collected all the prescriptions of the respondent from the year 2007 onwards for diagnosing the actual mental condition of respondent; that after thorough counseling and studying the mental condition of respondent, the hospital authorities diagnosed that respondent is suffering from borderline personality disorder.

4. Petitioner filed copies of bunch of prescriptions issued by Dr. T.P. Sudhakar, certificate issued by Dr. T.P. Sudhakar, S.V. Medical College dated 24.05.2008, therapy and counseling report of S. Bhaskar Naidu dated 12.03.2007 and final diagnosis report issued by Yenepoya Medical College Hospital dated 14.10.2017 as listed documents at Sl.Nos.4 to 7 along with OP.

5. When the HMOP is coming for trial, petitioner issued notice under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC to respondent to produce the documents viz., Prescriptions of Dr. T.P. Sudhakar given on different dates; Outpatient ticket of SVRRGG Hospital dated 02.02.2018; Therapy and counseling report issued by Dr. S. Bhaskar Naidu dated 12.03.2007 and Certificate issued by Dr. T.P. Sudhakar dated 24.05.2008 at SV Medical College, Tirupati.

6. Respondent filed objections stating that there are no such prescriptions, reports or certificates issued by said doctors and hence, the respondent is unable to produce the same. It was contended that petitioner being doctor might have created those documents in order to take advantage of the same.

7. By order dated 08.11.2021 the Court below closed the said notice.

8. Petitioner filed I.A.No.408 of 2021 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking to mark Photostat copies of several documents as exhibits on behalf of petitioner as secondary evidence.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, petitioner while reiterating the contentions in main HMOP, contended that petitioner filed Xerox copies of prescriptions, medical certificates and reports along with HMOP, however, the original are in the custody of respondent and thus, prayed to mark Photostat copies of prescriptions of Dr. T.P. Sudhakar, Psychiatrist; Outpatient ticket of SVRRGG Hospital dated 02.02.2018; Therapy and counseling report issued by Dr. S. Bhaskar Naidu dated 12.03.2007 and Certificate issued by Dr. T.P. Sudhakar dated 24.05.2008 at SV Medical College, Tirupati as exhibits.

10. Respondent filed counter and opposed the application.

11. By order dated 07.03.2022, the Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

12. Heard A. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the p