ORDER:

The 1st respondent was married to the son of the petitioner and the

3rd respondent herein. The son of the petitioner had passed away after a daughter had been born to him and the 1st respondent herein.

2. The daughter of the 1st respondent is presently in the custody of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has now filed G.W.O.P.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge,, Family Court at Eluru, for custody of her daughter. This petition is being resisted by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent herself had voluntarily handed over the child to them and a written agreement to that effect was also executed by the 1st respondent. This document has been denied by the 1st respondent. It is further stated that the 1st respondent, during her cross-examination, was confronted with the said document and her signature on the said document, and had denied the same.

3. In those circumstances, the petitioner moved I.A.No.620 of

2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, for sending the Memo of Understanding dated 15.10.2018 to a handwriting expert for comparison with that of the signatures of the 1st respondent. This application was dismissed on 20.07.2023 by the trial

2 RRR,J.

Court on the ground that the evidence of a handwriting expert is not a substantive evidence and would only amount to a opinion and can only be considered as corroborative evidence. The trial Court also took the view that the evidence of handwriting expert is a weak evidence and cannot be equated with the opinion of the fingerprint experts apart from the fact that the genuinity of Ex.B.1-agreement can also be decided by appreciating the evidence of RW.1.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. Initially, this Court had observed that there was no comparable signature, which was contemporaneous to the alleged agreement dated

15.10.2018.

5. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a Memo dated 12.09.2023 along with a Xerox copy of the sale deed in which the 1st respondent said to have affixed her signature. This document being a Xerox copy, would not suffice for sending the document, under Section 45, to any handwriting expert for comparison of the signature in the Xerox copy of the sale deed with the signature in Ex.B.1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the signature of the 1st respondent in the written statement and the signature on her deposition recorded in the Court can also be produced for comparison.

3 RRR,J.

7. Smt. T. Rani, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the document is a fabricated document and in any event, the existence of the said document would not make any difference for disposal of the petition. She would submit that the primary and only concern of the Court, in such cases, would be the welfare of the child and the same cannot be denied on the basis of the existence of any agreement. She would further submit that the child is suffering from various ailments, and therefore, disposal of O.P. should not be delayed any further. She further submits that the present application has been filed only for the purpose of delaying the disposal of O.P.

8. While the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

1st respondent merit consideration, the fact remains that the circumstances, in which the child has been left in the custody of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, would also have a bearing on the case and the same requires to be gone into by this Court.

9. The question of whether there was any agreement between the 1st respondent on the one hand and the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on the other, is germane to the disposal of the petition. In such circumstances, there is every necessity for verifying whether the signature on Ex.B.1 is the signature of the 1st respondent.

10. The trial Court took the view that the comparison of such si