Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 491, 528, 530 Of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2024
(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 10 & 25 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 14 - Custody of minor child - The court examined the admissibility of secondary evidence in family court proceedings, emphasizing the discretion of the Family Court to receive evidence that assists in resolving disputes, irrespective of strict adherence to the Indian Evidence Act. The court noted that the Family Court is not bound by conventional rules of evidence and can admit documents based on their relevance to the case. The court found that the lower court erred in dismissing applications for secondary evidence without proper examination of the necessity of the documents. (Paras 12, 14, 21, 27)
(B) Evidence - Admissibility - The Family Court has the discretion to receive evidence that may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, provided it aids in resolving the dispute effectively. The court reiterated that the Family Court's approach should be sensitive to the nature of matrimonial disputes and allow for a broader interpretation of admissibility. (Paras 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to introduce a settlement deed as secondary evidence in a custody dispute, which the lower court dismissed on grounds of insufficient foundation for secondary evidence. The petitioners argued that the document was necessary to establish their claims regarding custody.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court's dismissal was mechanical and did not consider the relevance of the document to the dispute. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the photocopy of the settlement deed could be admitted as secondary evidence without a proper foundation in the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Family Courts have the discretion to admit evidence that assists in resolving disputes, regardless of strict compliance with the Evidence Act, emphasizing the need for a sensitive approach to matrimonial issues.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed, and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration.
ORDER :
(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)
1. As a common issue arises for consideration in these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The underlying interlocutory applications are filed in G.W.O.P. No.43 of 2020 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Kushaiguda.
3. The Respondent No.1 herein had filed the underlying OP under Section 10 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘Act, 1890’) seeking custody of his Minor daughter. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the said OP and are the maternal uncles of the minor child.
4. C.R.P. No.491 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the common order dated 20.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.5 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘Act, 1872’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking to mark the photostat copy of the settlement deed dated 08.05.2019 titled as ‘Oppanda Patram-I’ as secondary evidence.
5. C.R.P. No.528 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.3 of 2023 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of the Code for reopening the evidence of RW-1.
6. C.R.P. No.530 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.4 of 2023 filed by the petitioners herein under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code to recall RW-1 to mark the documents.
7. Heard Sri. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. D. Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners herein contends that the Court below erred in dismissing the applications on the ground that these petitioners had failed to establish a foundation in their pleadings to lead secondary evidence, since the rules of evidence are not strictly applicable to the Family Courts. In support of his contentions reliance is placed on P. Devasenapathy Vs. P. Anusha, C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No. 2320 of 2018 & C.R.P.(MD).No. 10371 of 2018 dated 05.03.2019, and Karan Puri Vs. Sonika Chaudhary, 2023 PHHC 165262-DB. It is further contended that the Court below having observed that a copy of the Oppanda Patram-I dated 08.05.2019 was marked in I.A. No.145 of 2021 as Ex. R-2 ought not to have dismissed the applications. It is finally contended that even otherwise as the respondent No.1 herein had admitted to have entered into certain settlements with the petitioners herein after the death of the respondent No.1’s wife, the same would amply establish the existence of the said document.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 herein contends the petitioners herein have failed to plead about the existence of the proposed document in their counter affidavit filed in the main OP. It is further contended that the petitioners herein have failed to specify the location of the original document; and that even the photostat copy does not reflect the signature of the respondent No.1 herein. Thus, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Court below had rightly dismissed the underlying applications.
10. I have taken note of the contentions urged.
11. The primary issue that falls for consideration in these revisions is as to whether a photo copy of the alleged ‘Oppanda Patram-I dated 08.05.2019’ can be allowed to be marked in evidence in the absence of any pleading in the counter filed by the petitioners in the main OP as Secondary Evidence.
12. In order to decide this issue, it would be beneficial to refer to Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act, 1984’) which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Family Court. The said provision reads as under:
Family Courts have discretion to admit evidence that may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, focusing on relevance to the case.
Secondary evidence – Family Court has discretion to both receive and form opinion on a document which may otherwise be inadmissible under provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Family Courts can admit evidence, including electronic documents, without strict adherence to Evidence Act requirements when necessary for effective adjudication.
Family Courts can devise their own procedures, allowing flexibility in evidence admission, and are not strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code in matrimonial matters.
Will - Proof of documents by primary evidence.—Documents must be proved by primary evidence except When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom t....
Family Courts are not strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code and can adopt their own procedures, allowing the admission of evidence not previously filed.
Documents regarding the declaration of pre-existing rights are not compulsorily registerable and can be proved by way of secondary evidence. The court must address objections related to stamp duty an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
