ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The respondent in O.P. filed the above revision against the order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.529 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.76 of 2019 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The F.C.O.PNo.76 of 2019 was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the petition, it was pleaded that the marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2005 at Bride’s house at Pathapatnam village. 3. A counter was filed by the revision petitioner and respondent in FCOP and denied the solemnization of marriage. 4. Pending the enquiry, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.529 of 2024 under Order XIII Rule10 r/w Section 151of CPC to order the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam to send for documents i.e. the report made by the petitioner in O.P. and to cause production of the individual statements recorded by the police on 29.06.2018 and to give evidence. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, interalia, that while he was staying in Dwarakanagar Colony, Srikakulam, on 29.06.2018 he received a phone call from the Women Police Station to attend the station for enquiry on the report made by the petitioner in FCOP; that accordingly, he attended the police station; that the then Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that the police cannot perform the marriage at the police station and individual statements were recorded by the ASI of Police; that later FCOP was filed; that a registered legal notice was issued to supply the copies of the statement of records and the report and those records are necessary and hence, filed the petition. 6. The respondent/petitioner herein, respondent in FCOP filed a counter and opposed the petition. 7. The trial Court by order dated 03.10.2024 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said, the above revision is filed. 8. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below failed to consider the importance of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner got issued legal notice to furnish the copies, however the copies were not supplied. He would submit that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it. 10. He would also submit that the petitioner got issued legal notice to furnish the copies, however the copies were not supplied. He would submit that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.529 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.76 of 2019 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court? 11. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to note that the petitioner before making an application under Order XIII Rule10 r/w Section 151of CPC, to cause production of the documents, must apply to the authority to furnish certified copies under Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice. Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice prescribes the production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a Court. Rule 129 (c), which is relevant is extracted herebelow: c) No court shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued, to abide by the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced. 12. Case at hand, the petitioner made an application to the Women Police Station with a request to furnish the documents relating to counseling conducted in June 2018 at Women Police Station, Srikakulam. A reply submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been filed, along with the revision petition. A perusal of the reply would indicate that only one record entry was found in the counseling notebook and the entry indicates that the matter was compromised between both parties. A Xerox copy of the relevant page was furnished to the petitioner. No additional records are available at the police station. 13. Thus, a perusal of the reply issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahila Police Station, Srikakulam would indicate that the alleged statements said to have been recorded by the police, are not available. A Xerox copy of the relevant page was furnished to the petitioner. No additional records are available at the police station. 13. Thus, a perusal of the reply issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahila Police Station, Srikakulam would indicate that the alleged statements said to have been recorded by the police, are not available. In the absence of any material that the documents are available and despite the same, they are not furnished to the petitioner, the Court will direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahila Police Station, Srikakulam to send for the documents and to give evidence. However, the documents are not available. Had the police registered F.I.R., it being a public document it would be available and the petitioner can also get the certified copy of the same. 14. Given the discussion supra, the Court below considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality brooks interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any merit in the above revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.