Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Deepti Kapur vs Kunal Julka on 25 April, 2022

Vibhor Garg vs Neha on 14 July, 2025

11. Learned amicus as well as learned counsel and learned senior counsel for the respective parties have relied upon a number of judgements of the High Courts in support of their rival contentions. Having regard to the view which we have taken in the matter, we find that the conclusions arrived at in the case of Preeti Jain vs. Kunal Jain, AIR 2016 Raj 153; Jil vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4363; Essaki Ammal @ Chitra vs. Veerabhadra @ Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 2093; Havovi Kersi Sethna vs. Kersi Gustad Sethna, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 120; Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672 are just and proper inasmuch as tape recorded/digitally recorded Page 49 of 66 conversation between the spouses was permitted to be let in as evidence in support of the contentions raised by the parties, having regard to the parameters laid out under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao vs Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna on 4 March, 2024

20. This Court is in respectful agreement with the views expressed above, that a Family Court has the discretion to both 5 : 2023/DHC/003197 10 receive and form opinion on a document which may otherwise be inadmissible under the provisions of the Act, 1872. However, it is clarified that the Family Court is at discretion to discard such evidence if it finds the same to be irrelevant to decide the dispute between the parties. Further, as held in Deepti Kapur's case (supra), even after receiving the document in evidence, the Family Court is not under a compulsion to accept the credibility of the document, since the relaxation under Section 14 of the Act, 1984 goes only to the extent of ensuring that a litigant has a fair opportunity to plead his case.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T V Kumar - Full Document

Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao vs Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna on 4 March, 2024

20. This Court is in respectful agreement with the views expressed above, that a Family Court has the discretion to both 5 : 2023/DHC/003197 10 receive and form opinion on a document which may otherwise be inadmissible under the provisions of the Act, 1872. However, it is clarified that the Family Court is at discretion to discard such evidence if it finds the same to be irrelevant to decide the dispute between the parties. Further, as held in Deepti Kapur's case (supra), even after receiving the document in evidence, the Family Court is not under a compulsion to accept the credibility of the document, since the relaxation under Section 14 of the Act, 1984 goes only to the extent of ensuring that a litigant has a fair opportunity to plead his case.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T V Kumar - Full Document

Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao vs Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna on 4 March, 2024

20. This Court is in respectful agreement with the views expressed above, that a Family Court has the discretion to both 5 : 2023/DHC/003197 10 receive and form opinion on a document which may otherwise be inadmissible under the provisions of the Act, 1872. However, it is clarified that the Family Court is at discretion to discard such evidence if it finds the same to be irrelevant to decide the dispute between the parties. Further, as held in Deepti Kapur's case (supra), even after receiving the document in evidence, the Family Court is not under a compulsion to accept the credibility of the document, since the relaxation under Section 14 of the Act, 1984 goes only to the extent of ensuring that a litigant has a fair opportunity to plead his case.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T V Kumar - Full Document

Mr Vishwas Shetty vs Mrs Preethi K Rao on 30 November, 2022

- (2001) 4 SCC 125 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of DEEPTI KAPUR v. KUNAL JULKA - 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672. He would further contend that the wife has not even challenged the said order, the petitioner has no locus to challenge, if the wife has not 6 challenged it. Therefore, the order is required to be confirmed and the details as sought for are to be summoned. It is his emphatic submission that he needs the wife, there is a child and he cannot let go his wife and, therefore, he wants to prove adultery against the wife and retain her.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Aman Kumar Namdev vs Smt. Roshni Namdev W/O Aman Kumar Namdev on 20 December, 2023

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Deepti Kapoor vs. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC Online Del 672, wherein it has been held that Section 14 of Family Courts Act carves out an exception. As per Section 14 of Family Courts Act, Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, matter which in opinion of Court will assist it to deal effectively matter in dispute irrespective of the fact whether said evidence is relevant or admissible under Evidence Act, 1872. Placing reliance on said Section, Delhi High Court held that conversation between husband and wife is admissible in evidence in proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 122 of Evidence Act also carves out an exception regarding admissibility of evidence between husband and wife if case is between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Section 14 of Family Courts Act, 1984 wherein it has been laid down that Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information, etc. which will assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984, lays down that Act will have overriding effect on any other law for time being in force. In these circumstances he made a prayer for setting aside impugned order and permitting petitioner to adduce secondary evidence in respect of conversation between husband and wife.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Kethana Lokesh vs Rahul R Bettakote on 19 June, 2024

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka2, wherein similar issue had fell for consideration. The Delhi High Court had elaborately discussed several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and had come to the conclusion that though privacy is recognized as a fundamental right, that alone would not make evidence collected in breach of that right, inadmissible. Much less would it negate the specific statutory dispensation contained in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which says that evidence 2 AIR 2020 DEL 156 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:21752 WP No. 11818 of 2024 would be admissible, whether or not the same is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act. It is also observed that while a litigating party certainly has a right to privacy, that right must yield to the right of an opposing party to bring evidence it considers relevant to the Court, to prove its case. It is a critical part of the hallowed concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before the Court. It is also observed that it is important to appreciate that while the right to privacy is essentially a personal right, the right to a fair trial has wider ramifications and impacts public justice which is a larger cause. The cause of public justice would suffer if the opportunity of fair trial is denied by shutting out evidence that a litigating party may wish to lead at the very threshold. Basing on the said judgments, learned counsel submits that the said C.D. is admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that there are disputes between the parties on monitory aspects and also it has been averred in this petition. It is submitted that all the other grounds that are raised by the wife can be raised before the court as the same is subject to proof and relevancy. He -8- NC: 2024:KHC:21752 WP No. 11818 of 2024 submits that the order of the Trial Court is a well considered one and no interference is called for.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Arindam Chakraborty vs Smt. Sushmita Adhikari on 9 September, 2025

[23] In the instant case, learned trial court resorting to provision of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and a decision of Delhi High Court in case of Deepti Kapoor vs. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672, has given over emphasis on few photographs of the petitioner with said Smt. Ghosh which were proved by the respondent in her evidence. The same were stated to have captured by some unknown person and were transmitted to the cell phone of the respondent via Whatsapp. According to the learned trial court, the said joint photographs were of the petitioner and said Smt. Ghosh in sitting, standing and roaming position in the puja pandals. Based on said photographs, learned trial court came to the conclusion that said Smt. Ghosh was the paramour of the petitioner, and was maintaining extramarital relationship with him. The learned trial court missed the aspect that admissibility of evidence and reliability of same are quite different. One piece of evidence duly proved may not be reliable for several reasons. Nowhere, the learned court below observed that the said photographs reflected unusual intimacy of both the petitioner and said Smt. Ghosh but despite the same, such decision on alleged extramarital relationship was rendered. Learned trial court also missed to examine the authenticity of the Page 13 of 13 same despite the fact that those photographs in a very strange manner came from an unknown source to the respondent. Said Smti Ghosh was not a party to that proceeding and had no opportunity to be heard before she was castigated as a paramour of another person. She did not even have any scope to defend the allegations brought against her or also to explain the photographs. [24] In view of the above, though we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court but the observations made by the learned trial court in several places of the impugned judgment that said Smt. Ghosh was the paramour of the petitioner and was maintaining extramarital relationship with him, are expunged.
Tripura High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1