SIDAGAM SANJEEV Vs. AKULA VENKATA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the docket Order dtd. 31/3/2021 in H.M.O.P.No.274 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

(2.) Heard Mr.Palanki Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent. He filed O.P.No.274 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District under Sec. 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking annulment of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the ground of adultery. In the said O.P, the 1st respondent filed counter and contesting the same. The petitioner along with the main O.P filed certain documents including Original Residence Certificate dtd. 15/8/2018, Originals of 10 photos of respondents 1 & 2 with C.D and e-mail screen shot. As the said documents were not marked, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.40 of 2020 to recall him and to mark the said documents as exhibits. In the said application, the 1st respondent filed a counter, but was not present at the time of hearing of the said I.A. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter and perusing the counter was pleased to allow the said application by an Order dtd. 17/12/2020. Subsequently, at the time of marking the documents, the counsel for the 1st respondent raised objection for marking the same and the Court below by the impugned docket Order held that the petitioner is not entitled to recall himself and to mark the documents mentioned in I.A.No.40 of 2020. The learned Trial Judge inter alia opined that in order to receive the photographs with C.D and e-mail online copy, the petitioner has to establish the requirement contemplated under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, but the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions contemplated under Sec. 65-B and also failed to furnish the Certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge also opined that the petitioner failed to establish the mode of acquisition of 10 Photographs with C.D and e-mail online copy and as such failed to establish the admissibility of the documents. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner/husband.