IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.98 of 2025

16^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Bolleddu Neha.

…Petitioner AND Bolleddu Sushaanth Preetham.

...Respondent

ORDER:

Heard K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subba Rao Vadrevu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in D.O.P.No.55 of 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Khammam, (‘Family Court’), wherein a petition filed to receive the documents consisting of digital documents which were earlier not received while disposing of I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023, were permitted to be received subject to proof and relevance and admissibility.

3. The respondent herein filed a divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage with the revision petitioner. In said D.O.P., the respondent filed I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023 to receive certain documents. While allowing said interlocutory application, some of the documents were not marked on the ground that the provisions of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’) have not been complied. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the interlocutory application under revision on the ground that as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, strict rules of the Evidence Act are not applicable to Family Court proceedings. The strict rules of admissibility are waived, and lenient view can be taken for marking and admitting the documents. The documents which were not marked are documents which are downloaded from the phone of the respondent. They were sent to the HP laptop of an expert who issued Section 65 B certificate under the Evidence Act. Therefore, all the documents are amenable to be received.

4. The revision petitioner, while referring to the merits of the divorce petition and conduct of the respondent herein, which led to the disputes between the couple, primarily opposed the petition on the ground that the documents which were not received when they were filed in I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023, cannot be received, as two petitions with the same relief cannot be entertained. Further, it is emphasized that while admitting documents, more particularly digital evidence, the Family Court has to ensure that said evidence is not tampered or manipulated and only then such digital evidence can be admitted.

5. The learned Family Court after considering the rival contentions has allowed the application holding that the documents can be marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that in I.A.No.9 of 2023, only one document at Sl.No.71 was marked and the rest of the documents were rejected. The documents filed were unnecessary documents, and marking them would only increase the litigation and protract the proceedings. The Family Court observed some of the causes while passing the orders in I.A. and in I.A.No.9 of 2023, only document at Sl.No.71 was marked and the rest were rejected as the person who downloaded them was not authorized. While filing the present petition under revision, the respondent did not mention the name of the person who has downloaded the documents, but the documents were allowed to be marked.

7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner pleaded that the documents which were rejected in the earlier I.A. are allowed in the present I.A. without giving any reason. It is pleaded that once an I.A. is rejected, the same cannot be allowed, and adopting such a course is illegal and arbitrary. It is further pleaded that I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 were disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2024 and the respondent cleverly filed I.A.No.11 of 2024 for allowing all the I.As. and such an attitude indicates intentio