order to support the evidence of PW1, PW2, the father of the petitioner was examined as PW2 and he also deposed in corroboration with the evidence given by PW1. Ext A3 is the stamped receipt evidencing the receipt of Rs 1,38,000/- on 15.9.2004. PW3 is a witness in Ext A3 receipt and he was examined to prove the said receipt. He has given evidence to the effect that the said receipt was executed in his presence and he is also a witness in that receipt. Moreover he deposed that the said receipt was one written and brought by the first respondent himself for execution. It is needless to say, none of the witnesses were cross-examined by the respondents. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 stands unchallenged. It follows that the petitioner has succeeded in proving the case pleaded in the petition. In the absence of any challenge from the respondents the Family Court is justified in passing the decree on the basis of the evidence available on record. That apart, as regards Ext A3, the respondent specifically contended that Ext A3 was a forged document and the same was prepared in a stamp paper given to one Kishore by the first respondent when he borrowed an amount of Rs 50,000/- from the said Kishore and subsequently the father
