Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3.1 When the aforesaid case was listed for evidence, the appellant herein submitted his affidavit of examination-in-chief on 07.12.2018. Later, an application was moved by the appellant-husband on 09.07.2019 seeking permission to submit his supplementary affidavit by way of examination-in-chief along with memory cards/chips of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD) and transcript of conversations recorded in memory cards/chips of the mobile phones. In the said application, the appellant stated that various telephonic conversations happened between the parties during the period from November 2010 to December 2010, as well as between August 2016 and December 2016 and the same had been recorded by the appellant and stored in the memory cards/chips of the mobile phones. The appellant had also prepared the transcripts of those recorded conversations. Thus, the appellant prayed that he may be allowed to file his supplementary affidavit by way of his examination-in- chief along with memory cards/chips of the respective mobile phones, CD and transcripts of the conversations so recorded in memory cards/chips of the respective mobile phones. 3.2 The respondent herein opposed the application on the ground that the examination-in-chief was already completed and moreover, the admissibility of memory card/chips along with CD and transcripts is in dispute and these electronic instruments cannot be exhibited. The respondent therefore sought the dismissal of the application filed by the appellant. 3.3 The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda allowed the application filed by the appellant on 29.01.2020, on the ground that the conversation between the parties is relevant for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties and there is no bar on the admissibility of such a tape recording. The Family Court observed that the appellant is only wanting to prove the conversation between him and the respondent and not with respect to a third party. Reliance was placed by the Family Court on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (“F.C. Act” for short) which allows a Family Court to receive any evidence, statement, report, documents, etc., which is helpful in adjudicating the dispute between the parties and also on Section 20 of the F.C. Act, which has an overriding effect on the general rules of evidence. Thus, the appellant was allowed to prove the CD pertaining to the conversation between him and the respondent subject to its correctness. Consequently, on 18.02.2020 the appellant tendered by way of evidence the transcript of the audio recording, the original memory card of the phone and the CD prepared from the said memory card.
a) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Family Court and thereby declining permission to the appellant herein to corroborate his evidence in the form of what has been recorded on his mobile phone and by means of a compact disc (CD) and transcription of the same containing the communication made by the respondent-wife to the appellant husband in order to prove his case for seeking divorce?
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CR No.1616 of 2020 (O & M) and restore the order passed by the Family Court dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda. The Family Court is directed to take on record the supplementary affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief along with memory card/chip of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD) and transcript of the conversation recorded in memory card/chips of the mobile phones for the relevant period and consider the same as evidence, in accordance with law.