Digital Evidence - The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar expressed its view that to prove the voice of a person, the petitioner has to produce the basic and primary evidence before the Court i.e. Hard Disc of a System either may be Computer, Laptop or any Smart Phone which was equipped with the information. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge also expressed its view that the petitioner herein did not file such CD along with the counter filed by her in the main petition, and came forward with an application to receive the CD as additional evidence at a belated stage. Ultimately, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge held that any Compact Disc cannot be treated as secondary evidence unless and until the hard disc and its vital parts are filed and are approved by the Competent Authority as connected devices. So, by taking the said view, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner by order dated 07-11-2012.

CRP 86 / 2013

CRPSR 214 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT SMT. N.VIDYA RANI   VS T.HARI KUMAR PET.ADV. : BRAHMADANDI RAMESH RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 86 OF 2013

O R D E R:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner. Respondent/Husband – T. Hari Kumar has filed O.P.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act ( for short ‘the Act’) against Petitioner-Wife – Mrs. N. Vidya Rani for restitution of conjugal rights.

2.       In the course of enquiry in the said petition, the petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A. No.811 of 2012, seeking to receive the Compact Disc (CD) as evidence on her behalf.  According to her, it contains the conversation recorded between her and her husband on
19-04-2011 at Bangalore and stored the same in a Multi Media Voice Recorder and then the said recording was copied on the CD. 

3.       The said petition was opposed by the respondent/husband before the Trial Court by filing a counter contending inter alia that the CD cannot be accepted as secondary evidence.

4.       The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar expressed its view that 

to prove the voice of a person, the petitioner has to produce the basic and primary evidence before the Court i.e. Hard Disc of a System either may be Computer, Laptop or any Smart Phone which was equipped with the information. 

 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge also expressed its view that 

the petitioner herein did not file such CD along with the counter filed by her in the main petition, and came forward with an application to receive the CD as additional evidence at a belated stage. 

Ultimately, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge held that any Compact Disc cannot be treated as secondary evidence unless and until the hard disc and its vital parts are filed and are approved by the Competent Authority as connected devices.  So, by taking the said view, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner by order
dated 07-11-2012. 

5.       I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge. The application filed by the Revision Petitioner also does not show as to what was the abusive language used by the Respondent/Husband and in what way the conversation contained in the CD is helpful to prove her contention in the main petition filed by the Respondent-husband under section-9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  In view of the same, absolutely I see no merits in this revision.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                          ________________

      R. KANTHA RAO, J.

January 21, 2013.

MGR/ISL