Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 761 (TS)

Anni Ramesh v. Sowmya Anni Ghantasala

2020-11-11

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dt.13.10.2020 passed in Interlocutory Application No.426 of 2020 in Interlocutory Application No.1242 of 2019 in O.P.No.442 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad allowing the respondent herein to file certain documents which had not been filed by the respondent at the time when she had filed the said O.P. under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. In the said impugned order, the Court below mentioned that the respondent had asserted that her earlier marriage was dissolved by Court of Law having competent jurisdiction, and that the Court below had insisted the said respondent to file the said documents. It observed that strict compliance of procedural law is not necessary before the Family Court; and whether the said documents are fabricated or not, can be decided at a later stage. 3. The counsel for petitioner contended that the Court below should not have allowed Interlocutory Application No.426 of 2020 filed by the respondent and allowed the respondent to file documents relating to her previous marriage. He also sought to contend that there was no previous pleading about these documents. 4. But the counsel for petitioner did not dispute that it was the Court below which insisted that the respondent should file the documents relating to her previous marriage, and that was why the respondent had filed Interlocutory Application No.426 of 2020 to receive the said documents. 5. When the Court below had insisted on filing of the said documents and the respondent had obliged the said request, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the documents cannot be received. As rightly held by the Court below, strict compliance of procedural law is not required before a Family Court and issues of genuineness of the documents can be gone into at a later stage. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Revision warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails, and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.