LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-201

DEEPALI SANTOSH LOKHANDE Vs. SANTOSH VASANTRAO LOKHANDE

Decided On December 20, 2017
Deepali Santosh Lokhande Appellant
V/S
Santosh Vasantrao Lokhande Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Judge,Family Court at Pune rejecting application dated 18th August 2017 filed on behalf of the petitionerwife, by which the petitioner had prayed that the documents produced by her (Exhibits 198 and 292) along with her application being medical bills, receipts issued by the school authorities, prescriptions, medical receipts, hospital discharge card, xray reports etc. be exhibited in the proceedings. This application was contested by respondenthusband contending that before these documents are exhibited, the documents are required to be proved by the petitioner by examining the author of the documents or such appropriate witnesses. The learned Judge of the Family Court considering rival pleas and treating those documents as electronic evidence falling within the purview of the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, has rejected the said application by the impugned order. A review application against the said order was also rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in assailing the impugned order, contends that there is an apparent error in the Family Court passing the impugned order in as much as the purport of the provisions of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act has been completely overlooked in applying the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is a provision dealing with a proof of electronic record namely, bills, receipts, etc., generated by computers. It is submitted that in view of the specific provisions of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the contention that the document first is required to be proved before the same is exhibited ought not to be accepted. It is submitted that Family Courts Act is a special Act and the Evidence Act is the general law and thus, Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not applicable when it comes to relevancy and admissibility of documents in the proceedings before the Family Court, considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside by directing the Family Court to exhibit the documents as sought to be produced.