The Family Courts have ample discretion in receiving documents and the Indian Evidence Act is not applied in a mechanical manner in Family Court proceedings.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 5.12.2019 wherein and whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed in IA No. 2123 of 2019 in FCOP No. 742 of 2017 under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC by the petitioner/respondent praying to demark the documents that were marked under Exs.P3 to P24 on behalf of the respondent/petitioner.

2. Heard Sri. C.N. Moorty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anita Ahuja, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. Sri. C.N. Moorty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents that were marked in the absence of the petitioner are photocopies of documents, which are irrelevant and inadmissible, but yet they are marked, which is not in accordance with law. When an application is filed by the petitioner for demarking, without considering the purport of Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Sure Ranga Murali Krishna Reddy vs. Sure Yerri Vara Prasada Reddy, 2018 (5) ALD 396.

4. On the other hand, Smt. Anita Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the documents were marked very much in the presence of the petitioner's Counsel. She submits that after long gap, the present application is filed, which is not maintainable. She also submits that the strict rules of evidence under Indian Evidence Act have no application to the proceedings before the Family Courts under Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act of 1984’) and Sections 14 and 20 of the Act gives power to Family Court to admit any document notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. She also submits that all the documents except marriage card, are printouts of e-mails and WhatsApp conversations, In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgments reported in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur vs. Princes Manolya Jah, 2018 (4) ALD 204 (DB), The Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada Thermal Station vs. Nutalapati Venkata Rao, AIR 1991 AP 31 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami and V.P. Temple, 2004 (1) ALD 18 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 4548 : (2003) 8 SCC 752.

5. In this case, it is to be seen that the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Court below does not state that the documents are marked in the absence of Counsel for the petitioner. Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act of 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 10 shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other.

6. Likewise, Section 14 of the Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

7. Section 15 of the Act provides that in suits or proceedings before a Family Court, it shall not be necessary to record the evidence of witnesses at length, but the Judge, as the examination of each witness proceeds, shall, record or cause to be recorded, a memorandum of the substance of what the witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be signed by the witness and the Judge and shall form part of the record.

8. Section 16 of the Act provides that (1) the evidence of any person where such evidence is of a formal character, may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions, be read in evidence in any suit or proceeding before a Family Court and (2) The Family Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of any of the parties to the suit or proceeding summon and