IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

16th February, 2026 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3523 OF 2025 Between:

Dr. G. Sai Snigdha Bhashitha …Petitioner AND Dr. Dasari Sai Sarath …Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.149 of 2024 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-II Additional District Judge at Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Ravikanth Shivani, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed F.C.O.P. No. 149 of 2024 before the Family Court-cum- II Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of marriage dated 02.09.2023. It was further submitted that both the parties are doctors and the marriage was not consummated due to the respondent’s incompetency and psychological incompatibility, and that, on medical advice, there was no possibility of continuation of marital life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner filed certain documents along with the main petition, some documents could not be filed earlier as they were submitted before the District Legal Services Authority during counselling. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 104 of 2025 under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C to permit her to lead secondary evidence, to mark the downloaded Whatsapp messages (Text Message Screenshots), Photostat copies, pen drives and photographs.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations, including incompetency, and sought dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application by order dated 26.05.2025, observed as follows:-

“…8. (i) In the present case on hand, the petitioner sought permission of this court to receive electronic records viz. photostat copies of text messages and downloaded copies of photographs, screen shots, pendrives etc.

(ii) Now, it is to be seen, whether the requirement of certificate mentioned under Section 65-B (4) is a mandatory pre-condition before producing a secondary evidence as a document/primary evidence?

Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record shall be proved only when accompanied by a certificate as prescribed under Section 65-B (4). In absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic records/computer output is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, it is a mandatory requirement under Section 65-B (4) that a certificate be provided when electronic evidence is offered as secondary evidence. This certificate must specify the details of how the electronic record was produced and how it was maintained. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is generally deemed inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court has emphasized that oral evidence cannot substitute for the required certificate. The exception to this rule is to produce original electronic record itself as primary evidence.

9. (i) Though, the petitioner sought permission of this court to receive electronic evidence but, the petitioner has not filed requisite certificate under section 65-B of the Act. Further, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions mentioned u/s 65 B (2) (3) of Indian Evidence Act. This point is answered accordingly.

10. IN THE RESULT, this interlocutory application is dismissed, no order as to costs…”

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in the absence of the requisite certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the documents sought to be produced cannot be admitted in evidence.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, disclosing the so