In a recent court ruling on April 21, 2022, Mrs. Soujanya Mannepalli took legal action against Mr. Chinnayya Raja Vemuri regarding a decision made on November 19, 2019. This decision was related to an application (I.A.No.657 of 2019) filed in a divorce case (O.P.No.1396 of 2017) at the Additional Family Court in Hyderabad.
Background: Soujanya, the petitioner, sought permission to present photocopies of certain documents in court, claiming that her husband had failed to produce the original medical records despite specific allegations made in the divorce case.
Respondent’s Stand: Chinnayya, the respondent, contested this application, stating that the mandatory requirements under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act were not met. He argued that the petitioner was not entitled to introduce secondary evidence, especially regarding the medical records.
Court’s Decision: After considering both sides, the court allowed Soujanya to file photocopies, stating that the absence of notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act was not fatal to her case. The court emphasized that Soujanya must prove the authenticity and contents of these documents during the proceedings.
Legal Principles Applied: The court referred to legal precedents, including U.Sree vs. U.Srinivas, emphasizing that denial of document existence by the other party does not automatically justify admitting photocopies. However, in this case, the court found a clear foundation for introducing secondary evidence due to the specific allegations made in the divorce petition.
Conclusion: The court upheld the decision of the Additional Family Court, allowing Soujanya to submit photocopies as secondary evidence. The ruling emphasized that Soujanya must prove the contents of these documents during the course of the divorce proceedings.
Reference Links: