K. Sedulakshmi v. C. Venkatesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and C.M.P.No.2241 of 2024 K.Sedulakshmi, W/o.C.Venkatesan, ... Petitioner Vs.
C.Venkatesan, S/o.V.Chellan, Kattupillayarkoil Village, Orathy Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District - 603 307.
... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 19.09.2023 made in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Abhijeet Krishna for Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondent : Mr.S.Anburaja ******
ORDER
The petitioner/wife has filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Family Court order permitting the following documents to be 1/4
marked on the side of the respondent/husband before the Family Court. Sl.No.
DATE Parties to the Document Description of Document 1.
11.09.2017 Parents, brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner Petition under Section 482 CRPC in CRLOP No.19258/2017 2.
11.09.2017 Father of the petitioner Affidavit of father of the petitioner in CRLOP NO.19258/2017 3.
14.09.2017 Father, mother, brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner Final order made in CRLOP 19258/2017 4.
Father of the petitioner Petition under Section 482 CRPC in CRLOP No.22753/2017 5.
26.10.2017 Father of the petitioner Order in CRLOP NO.22753/2017
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that insofar as the order passed by this Court in CRL.OP.No.19258 of 2017 and CRL.OP.No.22753 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner has no serious objection for the same to be marked, provided the certified copies of the same would be marked. However, insofar as the other documents are concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which are sought to be marked are documents, where the respondent/husband is not a party to the same and therefore, the said documents should not have been marked.
3. Since the Family Courts are not bound by strict rules of evidence, it is open to the Family Court to frame Rules as to the 2/4
procedure and conduct of proceedings in view of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
4. Therefore, I do not see why the petitioner should be permitted to object marking of documents in connected proceedings between the same parties on the ground that the documents, which are relied upon, are affidavit of the father of the petitioner and copy of the petition filed under Section 482 of CRPC in Crl.OP.No.19258 of 2017 and similarly the copy of the petition in Crl.OP.No.22753 of 2017. The said Criminal Original petitions have already been disposed of and order copies are also sought to be marked on the side of the husband/respondent. Therefore, I do not see any serious prejudice to the petitioner/wife if the disputed documents are also received by the Family Court as evidence. However, it is made clear that photocopies of the same will not be permitted, the respondent/husband will have to produce the certified copies of the documents. Hence, the respondent/husband is permitted to produce the certified copies of order made in CRL.OP.No.19258 of 2017 and CRL.OP.No.22753 of 2017.
P.B. BALAJI,J.
mp 3/4
5. On such production, the same may be received by the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam.
6. Considering the fact that the O.P is of the year 2017, there shall be a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam to dispose the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No Index : Yes / No mp To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam.
4/4