ASHWINI Vs. AVINASH C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9 -7 -2014 passed in G and WC No. 212 of 2011. By the said order, the Court below has overruled the objection taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein who is the respondent in the said proceedings, for the marking of the documents which has been referred to in the course of the order. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court. The objection as has been raised before the Court below has been put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order. Insofar as the call details, FSL report and the Compact Disc (CD) which have been produced and marked in evidence, it is contended that it does not satisfy the requirement of Sec. 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, more particularly with regard to marking the electronic records.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that insofar as the call details, the document as secured from the police by making an application to them, cannot be considered as a valid document for the purpose of marking. It is also contended that in respect of the CD, it is stated that it has been secured from the criminal proceedings wherein it has been produced. The said CD is stated to have been produced by the respondent herein to the Police Authorities in the course of investigation and if that be the position, such marking and also the FSL report relating to the voice sample, would not be justified. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has therefore relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v/s. P.K. Basheer and Others, 2014 AIR SCW 5965 to contend that the issue relating to the marking of the secondary evidence relating to the electronic records has been considered and the said decision is also followed by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of Hosamanera Prakash and Others v/s. State of Karnataka, 2015 (2) AKR 710 (sic). Hence, it is contended that the Court below was not justified in overruling the objection.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that apart from the fact that the Court below has adverted to the contentions in detail in respect of each of the documents, and has thereafter overruled the objection, would also refer to the earlier order passed by this Court on 22 -4 -2014 between the same parties as at Annexure -F to the petition to indicate that when the production of the documents had been objected to by the petitioner herein, this Court had taken note of the provisions contained in the Family Courts Act, 1984 and had thereafter permitted the production of the document.