Karnataka High Court
Pradeep Laxman Bhat vs Sangeetha Laxman Bhat on 24 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 21114 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
PRADEEP LAXMAN BHAT
S/O DAMODAR VAMAN BHAT,
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/AT: FLAT NO.1,
CHENNAMMA JYOTHI APARTMENT,
PATRAO LANE, KARANGALPADY,
KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGEETHA LAXMAN BHAT
W/O PRADEEP LAXMAN BHAT
D/O GOPALAKRISHNA BANTWAL ACHARYA,
AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT: FLAT NO.1
CHENNAMMA JYOTHI APARTMENT,
Digitally signed by PATRAO LANE, KARANGALPADY,
MEGHA MOHAN KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. MRS. SNEHA SATHISH SHENOY
W/O SATHISH SHENOY,
AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT: 37,
GULMOHAR BUILDING,
OPP. MUMBAI PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KRISHNAJI WOMAN CHITALE ROAD,
DADAR WEST, MUMBAI-400 028.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DK, MANGALORE IN I.A.
NO.VIII IN M.C. NO.344/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN
THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 02/04/2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 in
M.C.No.334/2022 dated 17.06.2023 by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, the husband is before this
Court.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the
sake of convenience.
3. The respondent/wife herein had filed M.C.
No.334/2022 seeking divorce. In that, she had filed I.A.No.8
under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to
produce certain documents. It is stated that the wife is
intending to produce transcripts of video and audio
conversation between the parties with a separate list and the
documents are relevant and material to the facts of the case.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
The husband had opposed the application stating that the
application is not maintainable in law or on facts. The proposed
documents are inadmissible as per Section 65B of the Evidence
Act and the said documents are not the transcripts of the audio
and video conversation between the parties. The documents
are created and concocted for the purpose of the case and
produced at the later stage without any valid reason. Further,
the documents are not material for the adjudication of the case.
Copy of the pen drive is not given to the husband to know its
authenticity and the wife has no right to create evidence and
sought for rejection of the application. The husband had placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
1
Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others and also in case of
Shalimar Chemical and Works Ltd. Vs. Surendhar Oil and Dal
mills and also another2 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Selam Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs.
Union of India3.
1
(2014) 10 SCC 473
2
2010 (8) SCC 423
3
AIR 2005 SCC 3353
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
4. The Trial Court having considered the respective
contentions of both the parties, had observed that the wife is
seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. She made serious
allegations against the husband that he is having extra marital
relationship. According to her, she had saved audio and video
conversation between herself and her husband and the same is
relevant piece of evidence to establish her case and as the
conversations are in Konkani language, she is intending to
produce a transcription of the same. The Trial Court also
observed that admittedly, the pen drive which the petitioner is
intending to produce is a digital document along with the same
she has even filed Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act. As the Court is not aware of the Konkani language and
therefore, the transcription of the audio and video conversation
is very much necessary to appreciate the evidence on record.
There is no prescribed procedure how to produce a
transcription of the audio and video conversation recorded in
digital documents. The Trial Court observed that as per the
provisions of the Family Court's Act, the provisions of the
Evidence Act cannot be strictly applied to the Family Court
matters. If the dispute between the parties was in respect of
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
any valuable properties then, the matter would have been
different. Usually, in family matters the scenes between
husband and wife will happen inside their bedroom or four
walls. What happened between the husband and wife inside
their bedroom or house cannot be established by examining
any independent witness or independent evidence. Under such
circumstances, if the parties are having any conversation in a
video or audio then such conversation will be the vital piece of
evidence to decide the controversy. If any opportunity to
produce such piece of evidence itself is denied on technical
grounds as raised by the husband, the same will be against the
principles of natural justice and grave injustice would cause to
the party who intends to produce the digital evidence. The Trial
Court also observed that if according to the husband, the
transcription produced by the petitioner is incorrect, then he is
at liberty to file its correct version of conversation by taking
copy of the pen drive in accordance with law. Merely on the
ground that at present he is not having the copy of the
contents of the said pen drive, he is not entitled to make
allegations against the wife that the transcription produced by
her is created or false. The husband is entitled to obtain the
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
copy of the contents of the pen drive as per the procedure
prescribed under the law, verify it to the transcriptions
produced by the petitioner and if he feels aggrieved then he
can produce his version transcription, but the right of the
petitioner to produce transcription, pen drive and other
documents cannot be curtailed on technical ground. The Trial
Court also observed that as per the scheme of the CPC., the
parties are entitled to produce documents not only at the time
of submitting their pleadings but, also subsequent to the same.
In other words, at the time of submitting of their pleadings they
need not seek leave of the Court to produce the documents. In
the similar way while entering witness box the parties are
entitled to produce evidence in support of the issues which they
are bound to prove. As per Order 18 Rule 2 of CPC, both the
parties at the time of commencement of their evidence are
entitled to produce documents for which they need not seek
leave of the Court, the documents which the party intent to
produce cannot be considered at the time of granting leave.
The Trial Court finally allowed the application observing that the
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the husband
would not come to his rescue and accordingly, the Trial Court
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
had allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the husband is
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband had
advanced the arguments. He submits that the impugned order
is contrary to law as the Family Court had allowed the
application for production of document based on memorandum
of facts filed by the learned counsel for the wife. The Family
Court had failed to take note that no reasons are forthcoming in
the application filed by the wife for producing the documents at
a belated stage. Through the impugned order, the alleged
documents are taken on record without the necessary
application or reasons for the same. The Family Court ought not
to have allowed the application and marked the documents,
without giving opportunity to the petitioner to know the
contents of the pen drive as such the order is in gross violation
of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set
aside. Learned counsel submits that the alleged transcripts
provided by the respondent are not by any authorized person
and they are self made by respondent No.1. As such the same
could not have been taken on record as evidence and in any
event in the absence of the petitioner having serious objections
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
for making of the pen drive the transcript allegedly transcribing
the contents of the pen drive could not be marked as a
document. The order is contrary to Section 65B of the Evidence
Act and the documents produced does not reveal the
information mandated at law. He submits that it is established
principle of law that when an electronic evidences filed, the
same must be filed in accordance with the statutory
requirement under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the
respondent miserably failed to comply with the same and
despite that grave irregularity, the Trial Court had allowed the
application. He had relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others4 and
he had also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dilip Vs. State of Kerala
and others5. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in case of GP CAPT Atul Jain Vs. NCLAT and others6.
Basing on these judgments, learned counsel submits that the
Trial Court without any basis had allowed the application.
4
(2014) 10 SCC 473
5
(2020) 9 SCC 161
6
LPA 293/2021 and CM Appl.27762/2021, dated 25.08.2021
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife
submits that those documents are very crucial for deciding the
dispute between the parties. It is submitted that as the
conversation is in Konkani he has translated the same. The
Trial Court has already given him the liberty to file his own
transcript for the same. The husband without any basis has
come before this court and it is submitted that the Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. The wife wanted to produce the
conversation between the wife and husband, as mandated
under law she has also filed a certificate under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act. She has filed the transcript of the said
conversation as it is in Konkani language. Now, the grievance
of the husband is that firstly, the application is filed at the
belated stage. Secondly, the pen drive is not given to him and
the transcripts are not correct as such the order passed for the
Trial Court is without following the principles of natural justice.
This Court is not able to appreciate any of the arguments that
are advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Trial Court by
way of a reasoned order had allowed this application. The
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45656
WP No. 21114 of 2023
conversation is recorded by the wife, it is with her and she has
placed the same before the Trial Court and there is no
irregularity with the same. According to the petitioner, they are
not genuine or it is not the correct translation, he is always at
liberty to file the same before the Court. The Trial Court has
also made an observation in this regard. This is the MC of the
year 2022. The evidence of the wife is not yet completed. When
a particular piece of evidence is necessary for deciding the
dispute between the parties on the ground that it is not been
filed at the earliest point of time, cannot be a ground for this
Court to dismiss the application. Whatever the objections the
petitioner has, he can always put forth before the Court and on
this ground this Court cannot set aside the order. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had considered
all the aspects and passed impugned order. In that view of the
matter, this Court do not find any reasons to set aside the
order impugned. Hence, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections/transcripts/the correct transcripts, if
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023 he feels that the transcripts filed by the wife are not correct and he is also entitled to have the pen drive and the other documents filed by the wife.
ii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 2