Dismissed

Pradeep Laxman Bhat v. Sangeetha Laxman Bhat

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/21114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed by a husband, the High Court of Karnataka refused to quash an order of the Family Court which allowed the wife to produce transcription of audio/video recordings as evidence during a divorce proceeding. The Court held that the trial court's reasoned order stood and the petitioner could seek verification of the transcripts and original files subsequently.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file his objections or correct transcripts if he believes the wife's transcripts are incorrect.

Pradeep Laxman Bhat Vs Sangeetha Laxman Bhat — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21114 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PRADEEP LAXMAN BHAT S/O DAMODAR VAMAN BHAT, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT: FLAT NO.1, CHENNAMMA JYOTHI APARTMENT, PATRAO LANE, KARANGALPADY, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SANGEETHA LAXMAN BHAT W/O PRADEEP LAXMAN BHAT D/O GOPALAKRISHNA BANTWAL ACHARYA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT: FLAT NO.1 CHENNAMMA JYOTHI APARTMENT, PATRAO LANE, KARANGALPADY, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 003.

¶12

MRS. SNEHA SATHISH SHENOY W/O SATHISH SHENOY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT: 37, GULMOHAR BUILDING, OPP. MUMBAI PUBLIC SCHOOL, KRISHNAJI WOMAN CHITALE ROAD, DADAR WEST, MUMBAI-400 028.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶17

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DK, MANGALORE IN I.A. NO.VIII IN M.C. NO.344/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02/04/2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

CAV ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 in M.C.No.334/2022 dated 17.06.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, the husband is before this Court.

¶22

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶23

The respondent/wife herein had filed M.C. No.334/2022 seeking divorce. In that, she had filed I.A.No.8 under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to produce certain documents. It is stated that the wife is intending to produce transcripts of video and audio conversation between the parties with a separate list and the documents are relevant and material to the facts of the case.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶25

The husband had opposed the application stating that the application is not maintainable in law or on facts. The proposed documents are inadmissible as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the said documents are not the transcripts of the audio and video conversation between the parties. The documents are created and concocted for the purpose of the case and produced at the later stage without any valid reason. Further, the documents are not material for the adjudication of the case. Copy of the pen drive is not given to the husband to know its authenticity and the wife has no right to create evidence and sought for rejection of the application. The husband had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others¹ and also in case of Shalimar Chemical and Works Ltd. Vs. Surendhar Oil and Dal mills and also another² judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Selam Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India³ .

¶26

1 (2014) 10 SCC 473

¶27

2 2010 (8) SCC 423

¶28

3 AIR 2005 SCC 3353

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶30

The Trial Court having considered the respective contentions of both the parties, had observed that the wife is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. She made serious allegations against the husband that he is having extra marital relationship. According to her, she had saved audio and video conversation between herself and her husband and the same is relevant piece of evidence to establish her case and as the conversations are in Konkani language, she is intending to produce a transcription of the same. The Trial Court also observed that admittedly, the pen drive which the petitioner is intending to produce is a digital document along with the same she has even filed Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. As the Court is not aware of the Konkani language and therefore, the transcription of the audio and video conversation is very much necessary to appreciate the evidence on record. There is no prescribed procedure how to produce a transcription of the audio and video conversation recorded in digital documents. The Trial Court observed that as per the provisions of the Family Court’s Act, the provisions of the Evidence Act cannot be strictly applied to the Family Court matters. If the dispute between the parties was in respect of

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶32

any valuable properties then, the matter would have been different. Usually, in family matters the scenes between husband and wife will happen inside their bedroom or four walls. What happened between the husband and wife inside their bedroom or house cannot be established by examining any independent witness or independent evidence. Under such circumstances, if the parties are having any conversation in a video or audio then such conversation will be the vital piece of evidence to decide the controversy. If any opportunity to produce such piece of evidence itself is denied on technical grounds as raised by the husband, the same will be against the principles of natural justice and grave injustice would cause to the party who intends to produce the digital evidence. The Trial Court also observed that if according to the husband, the transcription produced by the petitioner is incorrect, then he is at liberty to file its correct version of conversation by taking copy of the pen drive in accordance with law. Merely on the ground that at present he is not having the copy of the contents of the said pen drive, he is not entitled to make allegations against the wife that the transcription produced by her is created or false. The husband is entitled to obtain the

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶34

copy of the contents of the pen drive as per the procedure prescribed under the law, verify it to the transcriptions produced by the petitioner and if he feels aggrieved then he can produce his version transcription, but the right of the petitioner to produce transcription, pen drive and other documents cannot be curtailed on technical ground. The Trial Court also observed that as per the scheme of the CPC., the parties are entitled to produce documents not only at the time of submitting their pleadings but, also subsequent to the same. In other words, at the time of submitting of their pleadings they need not seek leave of the Court to produce the documents. In the similar way while entering witness box the parties are entitled to produce evidence in support of the issues which they are bound to prove. As per Order 18 Rule 2 of CPC, both the parties at the time of commencement of their evidence are entitled to produce documents for which they need not seek leave of the Court, the documents which the party intent to produce cannot be considered at the time of granting leave. The Trial Court finally allowed the application observing that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the husband would not come to his rescue and accordingly, the Trial Court

¶35

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶36

had allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the husband is before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the husband had advanced the arguments. He submits that the impugned order is contrary to law as the Family Court had allowed the application for production of document based on memorandum of facts filed by the learned counsel for the wife. The Family Court had failed to take note that no reasons are forthcoming in the application filed by the wife for producing the documents at a belated stage. Through the impugned order, the alleged documents are taken on record without the necessary application or reasons for the same. The Family Court ought not to have allowed the application and marked the documents, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to know the contents of the pen drive as such the order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the alleged transcripts provided by the respondent are not by any authorized person and they are self made by respondent No.1. As such the same could not have been taken on record as evidence and in any event in the absence of the petitioner having serious objections

¶38

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶39

for making of the pen drive the transcript allegedly transcribing the contents of the pen drive could not be marked as a document. The order is contrary to Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the documents produced does not reveal the information mandated at law. He submits that it is established principle of law that when an electronic evidences filed, the same must be filed in accordance with the statutory requirement under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the respondent miserably failed to comply with the same and despite that grave irregularity, the Trial Court had allowed the application. He had relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others⁴ and he had also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dilip Vs. State of Kerala and others⁵ . Further, he relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of GP CAPT Atul Jain Vs. NCLAT and others⁶ . Basing on these judgments, learned counsel submits that the Trial Court without any basis had allowed the application.

¶40

4 (2014) 10 SCC 473

¶41

5 (2020) 9 SCC 161

¶42

6 LPA 293/2021 and CM Appl.27762/2021, dated 25.08.2021

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that those documents are very crucial for deciding the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that as the conversation is in Konkani he has translated the same. The Trial Court has already given him the liberty to file his own transcript for the same. The husband without any basis has come before this court and it is submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The wife wanted to produce the conversation between the wife and husband, as mandated under law she has also filed a certificate under Section 65B of

¶47

the Evidence Act. She has filed the transcript of the said conversation as it is in Konkani language. Now, the grievance of the husband is that firstly, the application is filed at the belated stage. Secondly, the pen drive is not given to him and the transcripts are not correct as such the order passed for the Trial Court is without following the principles of natural justice. This Court is not able to appreciate any of the arguments that are advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Trial Court by way of a reasoned order had allowed this application. The

¶48

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶49

conversation is recorded by the wife, it is with her and she has placed the same before the Trial Court and there is no irregularity with the same. According to the petitioner, they are not genuine or it is not the correct translation, he is always at liberty to file the same before the Court. The Trial Court has also made an observation in this regard. This is the MC of the year 2022. The evidence of the wife is not yet completed. When a particular piece of evidence is necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties on the ground that it is not been filed at the earliest point of time, cannot be a ground for this Court to dismiss the application. Whatever the objections the petitioner has, he can always put forth before the Court and on this ground this Court cannot set aside the order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had considered all the aspects and passed impugned order. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to set aside the order impugned. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections/transcripts/the correct transcripts, if

¶52

11 -

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:45656 WP No. 21114 of 2023

¶54

he feels that the transcripts filed by the wife are not correct and he is also entitled to have the pen drive and the other documents filed by the wife.

¶55

ii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶57

BN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 2

Pradeep Laxman Bhat v. Sangeetha Laxman Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Laxman Bhat v. Sangeetha Laxman Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sharath Alva Vs Smt Soumya Rai

Sri Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs Pragya Yadav

Sri T Rame Gowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri. T Ramaiah Vs Sri. Shivanna

Mr. Shankarananda K Vs Mrs. Sahana

Mr. Shankarananda K Vs Mrs. Sahana