Telangana High Court
Manish Minda vs Alka Minda on 19 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024
Between:
Manish Minda,
S/o Satyanarayana Minda
... Petitioner
And
Alka Minda, D/o Nanda Kishore Mittal
...Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 19.08.2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
2 LNA, J
CRP.No.3956 of 2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024
% 19.08.2025
Between:
# Manish Minda,
S/o Satyanarayana Minda
..... Petitioner
And
Alka Minda, D/o Nanda Kishore Mittal
....Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy
? Cases Referred:
1. (2021) 5 SCC 489
2. 2018(4) ALD 204 (DB)
3. (2011) 4 SCC 240
4. (2013) 2 SCC 114
5. 2025 SCC Online SC 1421
6. 2025 SCC Online MP 4217
3 LNA, J
CRP.No.3956 of 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated
20.11.2024, passed by the I Additional Family Court, Secunderabad,
in I.A.No.211 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.635 of 2021.
2. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed
FCOP vide FCOP.No.635 of 2021 seeking divorce against the
respondent. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter
denying the plaint averments. The trial commenced, PW1 filed
chief-affidavit and also additional chief-affidavit and the matter was
coming up for marking of documents and at that stage, the petitioner
filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC and Section
14 of Family Courts Act, to receive the documents i.e., CD,
WhatsApp chats and oral conversation transcript in English language
as electronic evidence and also other documents i.e., letters along
4 LNA, J
with certified translations and original postal receipts as secondary
evidence.
5. The respondent filed counter opposing the said application
contending that the documents now sought to be received are created
only to cover up the laches that occurred during the filing of the O.P.
and to improvise his case and as such, the application is not
maintainable and prayed the Court to dismiss the application.
6. The trial Court duly taking into consideration the contentions
of the both the parties dismissed the application by impugned order,
by observing that in the entire plaint averments, there is no reference
about the letters dated 11.08.2020 and 18.09.2020 and no foundation
was laid regarding the same and as such, declined to receive the said
documents as secondary evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that WhatsApp
chats and the English transcript of oral conversations were retrieved
from the respondent's mobile phone backup, which was accessed
when the respondent had left the phone unattended at one point of
time and the same are crucial in proving his case. He further
submitted that the trial Court while not receiving the copies of
letters, has erroneously discarded the electronic evidence i.e.,
5 LNA, J
Whatsapp chats and oral conversations transcript in English as well
and hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.
8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) Aman Lohia vs. Kiran Lohia 1
(ii) Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur vs. Princess
Manolya Jah and another 2.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the
documents sought to be received were not annexed to the O.P and at
least, there is no whisper about the said documents in the O.P., as
contemplated under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, therefore, the
application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of
CPC read with 151 CPC is not maintainable and as such, trial Court
has rightly dismissed the said application. He further submitted that
no valid grounds are made out in the Revision and the Revision
being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the
following judgments:
(2021) 5 SCC 489
2018 (4) ALD 204 (DB)
6 LNA, J
(i) Siddiqui (died) by LRS vs. A. Ramalingam 3
(ii) U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas4
11. This Court has bestowed its attention to the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and thoroughly
gone through the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned
counsels for both the parties.
12. In Aman Lohia's case (cited supra), relied upon by learned
counsel for petitioner, it is held as hereunder:
"The family Court is deemed to be a civil Court having powers
of such Court. Consequent to bestowing such power on the
family Court, comes its primary duty to make efforts for
settlement, as prescribed under Section 9. If that does not
happen during the resolution of the dispute between the parties,
the family Court then has to bear in mind the principles
enunciated in the Evidence Act, 1872, which had been made
applicable in terms of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. A
Family Court can 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
Evidence Act, 1872."
(2011) 4 SCC 240
(2013) 2 SCC 114
7 LNA, J
13. In Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur's case
(cited supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for
petitioner, a Division Bench of the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The discretion is vested with the Family court to receive any
evidence, any report, any relevant statement, documents,
information etc., which is necessary for its assistance to deal
effectively with a dispute. It is made permissible in the statute
whether or not such documents are relevant or admissible in
the Evidence Act. Thus, the powers are vested with the Family
Court under Section 14 of the Family Court Act to take those
documents on record."
14. In the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that discretionary
powers are vested with Family Court under Section 14 of the Family
Courts Act to receive any evidence, report, relevant statement,
documents, information, etc., which is necessary for its assistance to
effectively deal with the dispute, even if that evidence is normally
inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The overriding effect
given to the Family Courts under Section 20 of the Family Courts
Act is confined not only to the Code of Civil Procedure but also to
the Evidence Act.
8 LNA, J
15. In H. Siddiqui (died) by LRs's case (cited supra), which is
relied upon by learned counsel for respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with Section 65 of the Evidence Act, held that
though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary
evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of
limitations.
It was further held as hereunder:-
"In a case where the original documents are not produced at
any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving
secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to
allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus,
secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is
inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is
accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the
cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence
must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the
alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original."
16. In U. Sree's case (cited supra), the proposition laid down in
H.Siddiqui's case has been reiterated.
17. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate
to refer to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act which reads as
under:-
"A Family Court may receive as evidence any report,
statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its
9 LNA, J
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)."
18. It is also relevant to refer to Section 122 of the Indian
Evidence Act and for better appreciation, the said Section is
extracted as under:-
"122. Communications during marriage.
No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to
disclose any communication made to him during marriage
by any person to whom he is or has been married ; nor shall
he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless
the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest,
consents, except in suits between married persons, or
proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for
any crime committed against the other."
19. A combined and harmonious reading of the aforesaid two
provisions of law, would indicate that the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act have no strict application to the matters before the
Family Court.
20. As regards this aspect, in a recent judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg Vs. Neha 5 has held that Section 14
of the Family Courts Act gives a wide discretion to Family Courts in
2025 SCC Online SC 1421
10 LNA, J
deciding matrimonial disputes since they can go beyond strict Rules
of evidence in terms of relevance and admissibility while admitting
any evidence which they think is relevant for adjudication of the
dispute at hand.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme, by referring to Section 122 of the
Indian Evidence Act, further observed that the right to privacy is not
a relevant consideration in cases of spousal communications.
22. In Anjali Sharma Vs. Raman Upadhyay6, the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh has observed as hereunder:-
"The legislature, being fully aware of the principles of
admissibility of evidence, has enacted Section 14 in order to
expand that principle insofar as disputes relating to
marriage and family affairs are concerned. The Family
Court is thereby freed of restrictions of the strict law of
evidence and the only test under Section 14 for a Family
Court to receive evidence, whether collected legitimately or
otherwise, is based upon its subjective satisfaction that the
evidence would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute."
23. In the light of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act and the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg's case (cited supra) as
well as the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Anjali
2025 SCC Online MP 4217
11 LNA, J
Sharma's case (cited supra), it is settled that the Family Court has
discretion to admit any evidence which is relevant for adjudication
of dispute at hand, without referring to the restrictions and
technicalities prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act and also as
to whether the same is collected legitimately or otherwise.
24. In the backdrop of the above legal position, the point that
arises for consideration in this Revision is whether the documents
sought to be taken on record by the petitioner can be received or not.
25. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking to place on
record two letters, dated 11.08.2020 and 08.09.2020 which were said
to be addressed by his father to the father of respondent and
whatsapp chats and oral conversations downloaded from the mobile
belonging to the respondent.
26. In the impugned order, the Family Court has made specific
observations that insofar as the two letters, dated 11.08.2020 and
08.09.2020, no foundation has been laid and that there is no whisper
about the same in the entire pleadings in the FCOP.
27. Perusal of record would disclose that FCOP was filed in the
month of December, 2020, whereas the two letters are dated
11.08.2020 and 08.09.2020. As rightly pointed out by the Family
Court, there is no reference to these letters in the entire pleadings in
12 LNA, J
the FCOP, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial
Court has rightly declined to receive the said letters as secondary
evidence.
28. As regards the whatsapp chats and oral conversations
downloaded from the mobile belonging to the respondent are
concerned, in the light of the legal position laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg's case (cited supra) as well as the
judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Anjali Sharma's
case (cited supra), as well as considering the purport and intent of
Sections 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian
Evidence Act, this Court is of considered opinion that the same can
be taken on record.
29. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the Family
Court has neither adverted to nor discussed as to whether the
whatsapp chats and oral conversations downloaded from the mobile
belonging to respondent can be received or not. The Family Court
has repeatedly referred to only the two letters dated 11.08.2020 and
08.09.2020 and has totally lost sight of other documents i.e.,
whatsapp chats and oral conversations downloaded from the mobile
belonging to the respondent and one CD, which were sought to be
received by the petitioner.
13 LNA, J
30. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra, the impugned
order is required to be interfered with by this Court insofar as
receiving the CD, and the whatsapp chats and oral conversations
downloaded from the mobile belonging to the respondent are
concerned.
31. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed and the impugned
order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the I Additional Family Court,
Secunderabad, in I.A.No.211 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.635 of 2021, is
set aside and consequently, IA.No.211 of 2024 stands partly allowed
only to the extent of receiving the whatsapp chats and oral
conversations downloaded from the mobile belonging to the
respondent are concerned along with the CD.
32. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated: 19.08.2025
dr
