ORDER:

The respondent herein and the petitioner are wife and husband, who had got married on 10.12.2020. Thereafter, the respondents had moved H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. One of the grounds raised by her, in the petition, was that the petitioner herein was suffering from erectile dysfunction and was not fit for intercourse.

2. During the course of the proceedings in the said O.P, the respondent filed I.A.No.917 of 2022 for producing a medical certificate, certifying the erectile dysfunction of the petitioner herein, along with C.C.No.338 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku which had been filed by her against him. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 21.06.2023.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said document has been filed by suppressing the entirety of the document and only a part of the document has been filed. She would also submit that there is no pleading relating to this issue in the petition and that in any event there is no pleading about the manner in which the respondent sought to prove the alleged allegation relating to the erectile dysfunction of the petitioner herein. She would further submit that the said certificate is only a Xerox copy and the respondent has suppressed various facts relating to the said certificate obtained by her. In these circumstances, Smt. M.Radha contends that the trial Court ought not to have permitted the respondent to produce the said document.

5. It is settled law that pleadings are to contain facts and the manner of proving those facts need not be set out in the pleadings. The contention of Smt.M.Radha to the contrary would have to be rejected. Further, a perusal of the petition filed by the respondent would show that there is a specific pleading relating to the erectile dysfunction alleged against the petitioner. The submission made in this regard by Smt. M.Radha would also to be rejected.

6. On the question of whether a Xerox copy can be produced and whether it can be marked is a question which needs to be taken up only at the stage when the document is sought to be marked and such an objection at the stage of production of document could not be acceptable. The further arguments relating to the alleged suppression of fact etc., are matters which need to be placed before the trial Court through evidence which is appropriately adduced before the trial Court.

7. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court and this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all his objections before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

15.09.2023 RJS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2162 of 2023

15.09.2023 RJS