Telangana High Court
Bolleddu Neha vs Bolleddu Sushaanth Preetham on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.98 of 2025
16th DAY OF MARCH, 2026
Between:
Bolleddu Neha.
...Petitioner
AND
Bolleddu Sushaanth Preetham.
...Respondent
ORDER:
Heard K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subba Rao Vadrevu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in D.O.P.No.55 of 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Khammam, ('Family Court'), wherein a petition filed to receive the documents consisting of digital documents which were earlier not received while disposing of I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023, were permitted to be received subject to proof and relevance and admissibility.
RY,J CRP_98_2025
3. The respondent herein filed a divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage with the revision petitioner. In said D.O.P., the respondent filed I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023 to receive certain documents. While allowing said interlocutory application, some of the documents were not marked on the ground that the provisions of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act') have not been complied. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the interlocutory application under revision on the ground that as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, strict rules of the Evidence Act are not applicable to Family Court proceedings. The strict rules of admissibility are waived, and lenient view can be taken for marking and admitting the documents. The documents which were not marked are documents which are downloaded from the phone of the respondent. They were sent to the HP laptop of an expert who issued Section 65 B certificate under the Evidence Act. Therefore, all the documents are amenable to be received.
4. The revision petitioner, while referring to the merits of the divorce petition and conduct of the respondent herein, which led to the disputes between the couple, primarily opposed the petition on the ground that the documents which were not received when they were filed in I.A.Nos.8 to 10 of 2023, cannot be received, as two petitions with the same relief cannot 2 RY,J CRP_98_2025 be entertained. Further, it is emphasized that while admitting documents, more particularly digital evidence, the Family Court has to ensure that said evidence is not tampered or manipulated and only then such digital evidence can be admitted.
5. The learned Family Court after considering the rival contentions has allowed the application holding that the documents can be marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that in I.A.No.9 of 2023, only one document at Sl.No.71 was marked and the rest of the documents were rejected. The documents filed were unnecessary documents, and marking them would only increase the litigation and protract the proceedings. The Family Court observed some of the causes while passing the orders in I.A. and in I.A.No.9 of 2023, only document at Sl.No.71 was marked and the rest were rejected as the person who downloaded them was not authorized. While filing the present petition under revision, the respondent did not mention the name of the person who has downloaded the documents, but the documents were allowed to be marked.
3
RY,J CRP_98_2025
7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner pleaded that the documents which were rejected in the earlier I.A. are allowed in the present I.A. without giving any reason. It is pleaded that once an I.A. is rejected, the same cannot be allowed, and adopting such a course is illegal and arbitrary. It is further pleaded that I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 were disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2024 and the respondent cleverly filed I.A.No.11 of 2024 for allowing all the I.As. and such an attitude indicates intention to protract the proceedings. In case this anomaly is not rectified, the revision petitioner would suffer loss and therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the respondent had filed I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 to receive documents and while disposing of said interlocutory applications some of the documents were not received. Then, the I.A. under revision was filed to receive the documents which were not received in the earlier interlocutory applications. The Family Court instead of rejecting the same has allowed the I.A. receiving documents subject to proof and relevancy. Such a course cannot be taken and in that context, the learned petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of V. Santhosh Kumav v. Anasuya @ Latha1, wherein it is held as follows:
1
2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 189 (AP)_ 4 RY,J CRP_98_2025 "7. A plain reading of the above provision would show that when once a judgment or final order is signed by presiding Judge of the Court disposing of the matter, the said order cannot be reviewed or altered...
8. ...The section based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or an arithmetical error."
9. On the basis of above finding, it is argued that once the Family Court has passed an order to reject the documents on the ground of not satisfying the requirements of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be re-agitated and even in case it is re-agitated the Family Court ought not to have entertained the same.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, strict rules of the Evidence Act are not applicable to Family Court proceedings. The strict rules of admissibility are waived, and lenient view can be taken for marking and admitting the documents, considering the same, the Family Court has allowed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present revision.
11. As contented by the learned counsel for the respondent, Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides scope for the Presiding Officer of a 5 RY,J CRP_98_2025 Family Court to adopt any method that is suitable for arriving at a just decision while receiving the oral or documentary evidence on record. A Family Court is not strictly bound by the rules of the Evidence Act with respect to proof and admissibility. As contemplated under the Evidence Act, strict rules of admissibility are not expected while admitting documents in family proceedings. Thus, even in case there was any defect with respect to the documents filed along with I.A.No.9 of 2023, the Judge, Family Court ought not to have rejected said documents on the ground of non-production of certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act.
Alternatively, the documents could have been received subject to production of Section 65 B Certificate, in order to give fair opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case. By allowing the interlocutory application under the revision, the Judge, Family Court only rectified the error that was committed while passing order in I.A.No.9 of 2023.
12. This Court is not inclined to consider the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in V. Santhosh Kumav (supra), as said case is with respect to a transfer criminal petition filed, but not with respect to any Family Court proceeding. The facts of said case, which are about the maintainability of a second transfer petition when the first transfer petition was disposed of on merits is not applicable to the facts of the present case 6 RY,J CRP_98_2025 where it is interlocutory applications filed for the purpose of receiving documents. Thus, there are no merits in the present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Family Court in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in D.O.P.No.55 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 16.03.2026 GVR 7 RY,J CRP_98_2025 69 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.98 of 2025 W GVR 16.03.2026 8