IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024 Between:

Manish Minda, S/o Satyanarayana Minda … Petitioner And Alka Minda, D/o Nanda Kishore Mittal ...Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 19.08.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024 % 19.08.2025 Between:

# Manish Minda, S/o Satyanarayana Minda ..... Petitioner And Alka Minda, D/o Nanda Kishore Mittal ....Respondent < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi ^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy ? Cases Referred:

1. (2021) 5 SCC 489

2. 2018(4) ALD 204 (DB)

3. (2011) 4 SCC 240 4. (2013) 2 SCC 114

5. 2025 SCC Online SC 1421 6. 2025 SCC Online MP 4217 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated

20.11.2024, passed by the I Additional Family Court, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.211 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.635 of 2021.

2. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed FCOP vide FCOP.No.635 of 2021 seeking divorce against the respondent. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter denying the plaint averments. The trial commenced, PW1 filed chief-affidavit and also additional chief-affidavit and the matter was coming up for marking of documents and at that stage, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC and Section 14 of Family Courts Act, to receive the documents i.e., CD, WhatsApp chats and oral conversation transcript in English language as electronic evidence and also other documents i.e., letters along with certified translations and original postal receipts as secondary evidence.

5. The respondent filed counter opposing the said application contending that the documents now sought to be received are created only to cover up the laches that occurred during the filing of the O.P. and to improvise his case and as such, the application is not maintainable and prayed the Court to dismiss the application.

6. The trial Court duly taking into consideration the contentions of the both the parties dismissed the application by impugned order, by observing that in the entire plaint averments, there is no reference about the letters dated 11.08.2020 and 18.09.2020 and no foundation was laid regarding the same and as such, declined to receive the said documents as secondary evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that WhatsApp chats and the English transcript of oral conversations were retrieved from the respondent’s mobile phone backup, which was accessed when the respondent had left the phone unattended at one point of time and the same are crucial in proving his case. He further submitted that the trial Court while not receiving the copies of letters, has erroneously discarded the electronic evidence i.e., Whatsapp chats and oral conversations transcript in English as well and hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.

8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Aman Lohia vs. Kiran Lohia (ii) Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur vs. Princess Manolya Jah and another, 2018 (4) ALD 204 (DB)

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the documents sought to be received were not annexed to the O.P and at least, there is no whisper about the said documents in the O.P., as contemplated under Order VII Rule