Family Court Not Strictly Bound By Procedure Laid Down In CPC, Evidence Act; May Lay Down Own Procedure If Required: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that a Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and if required may lay down its own procedure in order to arrive at the truth of the matter. The order was passed by Justice T. Vinod Kumar while addressing whether a photocopy of a settlement deed could be introduced as secondary evidence in a family Court...
The Telangana High Court has held that a Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and if required may lay down its own procedure in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.
The order was passed by Justice T. Vinod Kumar while addressing whether a photocopy of a settlement deed could be introduced as secondary evidence in a family Court petition despite the absence of any foundation laid in the pleadings.
While passing the order, the bench relied upon Sections 10 and 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to hold that the Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the CPC and may establish its procedure to determine the truth. The same may also be applicable to the Evidence Act, it said.
“[CPC] does not prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure in order to arrive at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by other party….Therefore, by application of Section 14 of the Act, 1984, Family Courts are not strictly bound to follow the rules of the Act, 1872. However, the usage of the word 'may' indicates that discretion is vested on the Family Court to receive such evidence, should it consider the same to be relevant to unearth the truth,” it stated.
Background:
The case involved a custody battle between a father (respondent) and the maternal uncles (petitioners) of a minor child. The respondent sought custody of his daughter, while the petitioners contested his claim stating that after the demise of the mother of the minor girl, her responsibility had been handed over to her uncles. A key piece of evidence in this dispute was a settlement deed (Oppanda Patram-I/Settlement deed) allegedly signed by the respondent. The petitioners claimed they couldn't produce the original document and sought to introduce a photocopy instead.
The petitioners argued that the Family Court erred in rejecting their application to introduce the photocopy. They relied on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which empowers these courts to receive evidence that might not be strictly admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if deemed necessary for a fair dispute resolution.
Observations and Findings
The High Court acknowledged the broader discretion granted to Family Courts under Section 14 of the Act and it recognized that Family Courts can consider photocopies or even electronic records in certain circumstances, even if they wouldn't be admissible under the Evidence Act. However, the court emphasized that this discretion isn't absolute. The Family Court must be satisfied that the evidence being offered, even if unconventional, holds relevance to the case at hand, it stated.
The court observed inconsistencies in the petitioners' arguments regarding the original document. It stated that while they claimed they couldn't produce it, they also inconsistently stated that a copy of the same document was previously marked in another application without objection from the respondent.
The High Court criticized the Family Court for mechanically rejecting the application to introduce the photocopy. It found fault with the lower court's order for not considering whether the document was indeed crucial to resolving the dispute. However, the High Court also refrained from allowing the photocopy's immediate admission as evidence. It said:
“In the light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the view that the Court below erred in dismissing the underlying applications in a mechanical manner solely on the ground that there was no foundation to lead secondary evidence, without examining whether or not the document sought to be introduced was required to resolve the dispute.”
Accordingly, the court remanded the case back to the Family Court. It directed the lower court to re-evaluate the petitioners' request in light of the observations made.
It said that the Family Court will have the opportunity to assess whether the petitioners can establish a proper foundation for admitting the photocopy as secondary evidence, considering the inconsistencies in their previous statements.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 491, 528, 530 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: Shyam S Agrawal
Counsel for respondents: D. Madhava Rao