THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3176, 3220 & 3225 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Vijayawada in I.A.Nos.906 of 2011, 907 of 2011 and 908 of 2011 in O.P.No.463 of 2006 respectively. The petitioner herein, who filed the above O.P under the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his children, who are in the custody of the respondents-the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle of the children, filed the above Interlocutory Applications to reopen the case for receiving the documents for further evidence on the ground that after submitting the arguments, he received the copy of the judgment in HMOP No.23 of 2005 on 19.06.2011 and also C.D, which clearly reveal the attitude and behaviour of the respondents against him; to recall P.W.1 for marking of documents and to receive the documents by condoning the delay. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.906 of 2011 holding that since the O.P. was filed seeking custody of his children from the respondents, the attitude of the respondents against the petitioner is not at all relevant; that apart for admissibility of electronic records, the petitioner has to specify the conditions imposed under Sub Clauses (2) to (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that no such conditions were fulfilled except filing the C.D. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.906 of 2011, the Court below dismissed the other two Interlocutory Applications also. Hence, these revision petitions. In the orders under revision, it is not stated that the judgment in HMOP No.23 of 2005 is not relevant to the facts of the case. The said HMOP No.23 of 2005 is filed by the petitioner seeking divorce and the same was allowed granting a decree of divorce. The respondents were resisting the claim of the petitioner for custody of the children on ground that he married another lady, and therefore, the custody of the children cannot be given to him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to disprove the contention of the respondents, the petitioner has to adduce the judgment in the said HMOP No.23 of 2005 in evidence. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been reopened by the Court below subsequently to examine the children of the petitioner. If that being the case, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application to receive the copy of the judgment in HMOP No.23 of 2005 afresh. On such application being filed by the petitioner, it is for the Court below to consider the same, in accordance with law`. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2011 va