R NANDHINI Vs. T E NANDAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge is the revision of one of the documents which the petitioner intended to mark under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the e-mails which she sought to produce before the Family Court evidences certain averments touching upon the petitioner's relationship with another women and as such, it becomes relevant since certain allegation of cruelty has been pleaded in the petition. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court is not correct in relying upon Section 65(D) of the Indian Evidence Act for refusing to mark the e-mails in the absence of certificates contemplated therein. By relying upon the Judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2018 passed in C.R.P.No.2418 of 2018, the counsel submitted that the order rejecting her request to mark the e-mails is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the divorce petition is filed by him and that the petitioner cannot rely upon certain e-mails to establish her allegations against the respondent herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the e-mails which the petitioner intends to mark are prior to the marriage and has absolutely no relevance to the present case. The learned counsel strongly opposed the contents of the e-mails and submitted that there are imputations in the e-mails to implicate the petitioner of an immoral conduct. The learned counsel by relying on the reasoning of the Court below in rejecting the petitioner's request to mark the documents submitted that, while analysing the relevancy of the documents, the discretion vested with the Family Court under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act should not be interfered into. As such, the learned counsel submitted that there was no infirmity in the order of the Family Court rejecting the petitioner's request to mark the e-mails.