Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1326 (MAD)

R. Shanthi @ Bhuvaneswari v. A. P. Rothaman

2010-03-29

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 23.6.2009, made in I.A.No.3347 of 2008, in O.P.No.749 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. O.P.No.749 of 2002 had been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, for divorce. He had also filed I.A.No.3347 of 2008, in O.P.No.749 of 2002, before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking to send Exs.P-7 and P-8 to the hand writing expert, for comparing the same with Ex.P-16. The learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Chennai, by his order, dated 23.6.2009, had allowed the application, permitting the Hand Writing Expert, Hand Writing Analysis Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, to examine and compare the said documents and to file a report before the Court, giving his opinion. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, on 23.6.2009, in I.A.No.3347 of 2008, is arbitrary and illegal. He had submitted that Ex.P-7 does not contain any signature and there is no date mentioned therein. He had also submitted that Ex.P-8 is a torn sheet of paper. Therefore, the said document cannot be compared with Ex.P-16, as directed by the Family Court. It is also not known as to whom the documents had been addressed. 4. The learned counsel had further stated that only contemporaneous signatures and handwritings can be compared, as held by a Division Bench of this Court, in Central Bank of India V. Antony Hardware Mart (2006(3) M.L.J.567). Therefore, the order of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 23.6.2009, is erroneous, as it is contrary to law and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had admitted the signatures in Exs.P-7 and P-8 and she had also admitted that the documents marked as Ex.P-16 has been written in her own handwriting. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had admitted the signatures in Exs.P-7 and P-8 and she had also admitted that the documents marked as Ex.P-16 has been written in her own handwriting. In such circumstances, the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 23.6.2009, in I.A.No.3347 of 2008, referring Exs.P-7, P-8 and Ex.P-16 for comparison of the handwritings and for an expert opinion thereon. The order of the learned Judge is only in accordance with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows: "73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.__ In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person maybe compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person." 6. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions to state that the order of the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 23.6.2009, is in accordance with law and as per the various decisions of the courts of law. 1) G.Senbagaraman V. N.Maritmuthu (AIR 2005 Madras 41) 2) Damara Venkata Murali Krishna Rao V. Gurujupalli Satvathamma (2008-4-L.W. 687) 3) Karuppa Gounder Vs. Kuppusamy [2009(2) TNLJ 80 (Civil)] 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 23.6.2009, made in I.A.No.3347 of 2008, cannot be held to be erroneous or illegal. 8. 8. The order, dated 23.6.2009, made in I.A.No.3347 of 2008, is in accordance with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned II Additional Principal Judge was right in coming to the decision that the comparison of the handwritings in Exs.P-7, P-8 and P-16, by the hand writing expert and the report filed before the Court thereon, would be helpful to the Court, to arrive at a fair decision, in respect of the issues arising for its adjudication. As such, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.