SANTHAMANI Vs. S N SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the wife (respondent in O. P. No. 110 of 1976) alleging from the initial stage to this stage of revision, that she had not received summons in this case of a petition that had been filed by her husband before the trial Court under section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, praying for divorce, on the ground of adultery.

(2.) MR. M. R. Narayanaswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the signature found in Exhibit C-1 the postal acknowledgment, was contested as one not having been put by the petitioner herein, and as a matter of fact, one V. D. Mahajan, a handwriting expert had been asked to submit his report and that the said report which was in favour of the petitioner, was also submitted to the Court, but for reasons best known to both sides, the same had not been accepted in this case.

(3.) THE point for consideration is, whether the failure to take into consideration the expert opinion offered by the handwriting expert which is available on record of course not as evidence, but as one that had come into existence during the course of the proceedings in that it came into existence subsequent to the filing of the petition at the instance of the petitioner herein, requires the Court itself to take into consideration the genuineness or otherwise of the plea thus emanating from P. W. 1 regarding her signature found in - Exhibit C-1 especially when Exhibit C-1 is a Court document.