THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3323 OF 2011 Date:22.09.2011 Between: G.Sujatha .. Petitioner And Ayyagari Satish .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3323 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. He filed O.P.No.53 of 2008 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The same is pending. After completion of trial, the respondent filed I.A.No.396 of 2011 purportedly under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity, the Act) praying the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, to receive 11 additional documents. In support of the said application, he stated that after trial/enquiry in the said O.P., he possessed the documents which are necessary to prove that the petitioner is speaking lies in her evidence. He alleged that the petitioner is staying with one A. Phalgun Kumar at Sanjose, California, which would disprove her statement that she is staying in Baltimore, Mary Land in USA. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein inter alia contending that the respondent is not entitled to adduce any evidence without pleading. The Court below, however, overruled the petitioner and by order dated 19.07.2011 allowed the said application. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application under Section 14 of the Act would not lie; in the absence of any pleading, the respondent cannot be permitted to produce additional documents after completion of trial. He placed reliance on Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v Veeramalla Koteswara Rao[1] and Bolla Ajay Babu v Nalla Manikyamma[2]. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Family Courts to receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may be in its opinion, assist it to deal effectively with a dispute, whether or not such matter or material would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In law of evidence, unless there is a specific pleading no amount of evidence would help the party to the proceedings. In view of the clear language of Section 14 of the Act, such a principle would not apply. The Family Court is empowered to receive evidence whether it is admissible or inadmissible, whether it is relevant or irrelevant, if the Court is satisfied that it would be necessary to arrive just conclusion. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission that the Family Court erred in exercising discretion which did not vest. The language of Section 14 of the Act is wide enough to empower the Family Courts to receive any document and no provision of the Indian Evidence Act would bar or prohibit the Family Court any new material or information. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 22.09.2011 KH [1] (2010) 1 SCC 466 [2] 2010 (1) ALD 163