1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1817 OF 2010 Mrs. Vaishali Jejurkar. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Ashish Jejurkar. .. Respondent -- Smt. Shakuntala Joshi i/by S.I. Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Shri Vikramaditya Deshmukh i/by Ranjana Todankar for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Petitioner is the wife and the Respondent is the husband. A Petition is pending before the learned Judge of the Family Court filed by the Petitioner under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said Petition, an application was made by the Respondent-husband at Exhibit-58 praying that E-mails annexed to the said application be sent to the Senior Inspector of Cyber Police Station, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai, with a view to ascertain its authenticity and the source from 2 which they originated and submit a report in that behalf. A prayer was also made directing the Senior Inspector, Cyber Police Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, to ascertain the ownership of a particular sim card number. Lastly a prayer was made for seeking opinion of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Mumbai, to ascertain the authenticity of the sms stored in the blackberry handset of the cell phone. The said application was contested by the Petitioner. On 7th October, 2009, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed that after recording of evidence of the present Petitioner and her witnesses, the arguments on the said application will be heard. Subsequently, an application was made by the Respondent at Exhibit-62 for modification of the earlier order dated 7th October, 2009 passed by the Family Court on earlier application at Exhibit-58. The prayer was that the Family Court should hear the earlier application and pass an appropriate order. On 2nd February, 2010, the application made by the Respondent at Exhibit-58 was allowed by passing the following order. “1. The application is allowed. 2. Order dated 7.10.2009 passed below Exh. 58 is set aside. 3. Refer the E-mails and SMS attached to the application Exh.58 to Cyber Branch of Police, Mumbai for ascertaining the person, place and instrument by whom/which the E-mails and SMS were sent and further to ascertain by which instrument at which place and by whom these E- mails & SMS were received. 4. The Petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of 3 Rs.5000/- towards the fees of Cyber Branch of Police, Mumbai.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has placed on record an affidavit affirmed today stating therein that the order impugned has been acted upon and a report has been received by the Trial Judge from the Cyber Branch of Mumbi Police. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the application at Exhibit-58 was not maintainable as the Family Court has no power to direct an investigation to be made by the police. She submitted that it is for the Respondent to prove his case and the prayers made in the said Application could not have been granted. The learned counsel further submitted that the only prayer made in the subsequent application at Exhibit-62 was for modification of the order passed below Exhibit-58 directing that the application at Exhibit-58 should be considered after recording of the evidence of the Petitioner is completed. She submitted that while dealing with the said application at Exhibit-62, the Court could not have allowed the prayers made in the application at Exhibit-58 and at the highest, the Court could have taken up the application at Exhibit-58 for hearing. The submission is that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order which is impugned in this Petition. 5. I have considered the submissions. The effect of the impugned order is that the opinion and report of the concerned authorities 4 as regards the authenticity and/or source of the E-mails and the SMS referred to in the application at Exhibit-58 has been placed on record of the Family Court. All questions relating to evidentiary value of such opinion and relevancy of E-mails and SMS are obviously open. The effect of the order is that the opinion of the concerned authorities will be placed on record and the said opinion will be considered by the Family Court in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties as regards the said opinion and the relevancy of the E-mails and SMS remain open which can be considered by the Family Court at the time of final disposal of the main Petition. Moreover, in the light of the opinion which is placed on record, it will be open for the Petitioner to adduce further evidence as may be necessary. 6. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)