Kerala High Court
Abu vs Fathima on 12 July, 2017
Bench: V.Chitambaresh, Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/19TH ASWINA, 1939
OP (FC).No. 530 of 2017 (R)
----------------------------
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
----------------------------------------
ABU, AGED 58 YEA4RS, S/O KUNJIMOOSA HAJI,
KARIMBAL HOUSE, POOKUTH, POOLAMANA P.O.,
THUVVUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.S.SUJINI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
---------------------------------------
FATHIMA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O ABOOBACKER,
KUNDHIRIYATT HOUSE, RESIDING AT IPPOOTTINGAL,
MAMBAD P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 542.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE
BY ADV. SMT.ANJU CLETUS
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-10-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No. 530 of 2017 (R)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO.239/2017 IN OP
NO.614/2015.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA
NO.239/2017 IN OP NO.614/2015.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.239/2017 IN OP NO.614/2015
DATED 12.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE RESPONDENT DURING
EXAMINATION FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON
1.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL M.C.NO.2703/2017 DATED 5.7.201.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(F.C.) No. 530 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
Chitambaresh, J.
The Family Court has obviously lost sight of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 which reads as follows:
"14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)".
2. Therefore a photograph can be marked and received in evidence without reference to Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The negatives of the photograph are therefore not essential for the Court to receive the same in evidence. This is particularly so when the snap is said to have been taken with the aid of a mobile phone. But whether the photograph will advance the case of the petitioner is a matter to be considered by the Family Court during the final trial.
3. However we concur with the Family Court as regards the rejection of the audio C.D. in evidence. Voice 2 OP(FC) No. 530/2017 spectrography is not a safe mode of evidence and there is divergence of judicial opinion. The voice emanating from the C.D. cannot also be compared with the original voice of the lender. We are in agreement with the Family Court as regards the rejection of the audio C.D. in evidence.
Ext.P3 order is modified to the above extent. The Original Petition is disposed of.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE SATHISH NINAN JUDGE ncd