LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-267

ESSAKI AMMAL ALIAS CHITRA Vs. VEERABHADRA ALIAS KUMAR

Decided On June 15, 2012
ESSAKI AMMAL ALIAS CHITRA Appellant
V/S
VEERABHADRA ALIAS KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and decretal order dated 11.7.2013 passed in I.A. No. 54 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil, allowing the Petition filed by the Respondent to play the compact disc marked as Ex. P7 in the Court and receive it as evidence. The Respondent/husband has initiated Divorce proceedings as against his wife in H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 2011 alleging cruelty against the wife. The Petitioner/wife denied the allegations leveled against her by the Respondent in the Counter filed by her. During the examination of the Respondent as PW1, the compact disc was marked as Ex. P7 subject to the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/wife. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner/wife abused him in a filthy language over cell phone and the Respondent has recorded the same in his cell phone and downloaded in a compact disc which is exhibited as Ex. P7. He filed an Interlocutory Application seeking permission of the Court to display the said compact disc before the Court so as to enable the Court to hear the conversation between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

(2.) The Petitioner resisted the said Application contending that the Respondent did not produce the cell phone and the memory card through which he is alleged to have recorded the conversation and no steps have been taken by him to get an expert opinion to identify the voice that it is the voice of the Revision Petitioner. It was contended that in the absence of expert's opinion, it is not permissible for the Court to hear the conversation recorded in the compact disc. It is also pointed out that there is every possibility of erasure, addition and manipulation by using the electronic technology and without identifying the voice recorded in the Respondent's cell phone, the Respondent is not entitled to seek leave of the Court to hear the alleged conversation by playing the compact disc before the Court.

(3.) The Trial Court allowed the said Petition on the ground that as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Trial Court itself has got power to compare and identify the voice recorded in the compact disc with that of the voice of the Revision Petitioner/wife and the display of the said CD would help the Court to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The Trial Court also directed the Respondent to produce the cell phone and other instruments for playing the CD.