ORDER

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. Anusha1, and Karan Puri Vs. Sonika Chaudhary2. 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.

1 C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No. 2320 of 2018 & C.R.P.(MD).No. 10371 of 2018 dated 05.03.2019 2 2023:PHHC:165262-DB

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:

“10. Procedure generally.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [o