MADHVI SHRMA Vs. PUSHPENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/wife assailed the order passed by the Family Court dated 6.8.2013 passed in Case No.33A/10 (HMA). By the said order, the Court below allowed the applications preferred under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. Assailing this order, Shri H.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Court below has erred in allowing the application under order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and taking the photographs on record. By taking assistance from Section 63 and 65 of Evidence Act, it contended that secondary evidence can be permitted to be lead in a manner prescribed under Section 63 and 65 of the Act. Unless the ingredients of the said provisions of Evidence Act are satisfied, the secondary evidence cannot be taken on record.

(2.) The amendment application which was allowed by the impugned order is also challenged by contending that the matter was at the stage of evidence and after commencement of the trial, it was not open for the Court below to allow the amendment preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Lastly, it is contended that the Court below should have allowed the application under Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-6).

(3.) Per contra, Shri Santosh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order and relied on certain provisions of the Evidence Act and the Family Court Act, 1984.