./" ^ ^- PETITIONER W.P.(C) No.7522/2007 Smt. Tejshree Peudse, Aged 23 years, W/o Paiitosh Pendse, Present R/o H.No.74, behind gartlen., Chliatrapati Nagar, N;agpur (Maharashtra). Versus Paritosh Pendse, S/o Shri Prafeash Pendse, Aged about 28 years, R/o Samta Colony, Near Gayatri Mandir, Raipur (C.G^.) WRITPBTITIOH UNDBR ARTICLE 2270F THB CONSTiTUTION OE* IHDIA Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaa, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Vyas, Couiisel for the respondeat. (1S.2.2008) Heard. The petitioner/non-applicant has filed this writ petltion Tmder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging tfae action of ftie Family Court, Raipur, by which, on 23.11.2007, while recording the evidence of respondent (PW-1) in Case No.348-A/2007, fhe Family Court marked Ex.P/3 to P/88 over 85 call details called by it iu fhe said case. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioaer subinits that fhe contents of fhe call detaUs cannot bc held to be proved iu such a maaner, because neifher the person preparing such call details was called ia fhe Court nor it was coinpared with fhe origiaal records of such details niaintained by the concemed offlce. He also subinits that fhe copies of tttese documents were not suppUed to fhe petitioner at the time of laarMng exhibits. However, durmg the course of ai^umeuts, leamed counsel subinits that later on, the copies of these documents were suppUed to the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.7522/2007 Needless to say fhat nierely inarlditg exhlbit over a docnment does not amount to proof of the facts contauied in fhe docuinent. If fhe facts contauied in the document are required to be proved, there are various inethods regardiug that and unless fhose inefhods are exhausted, the contents of the docuxnieut cannot be held to be proved by inarkuig exhibit ia the inaruier indicated above. Ifwe go fhrough the contents offhat part ofthe order, which is recorded iu fhe deposition sheet, it reads as foUows : "3TRr f^TO) zpt writ p gcTO i cpggr f:- (11) ^ <14<iTO 3RIW!f 3RRR ^ ^ ^r 'te t ^? 3t'1|c|R*l gRI 3Wft ^lNt q?t q?H q?^ ^ ^Nfel t f^pa^ !pi?r I^PH TR?f1ft3^?R?f1ft88t(qTRf l^yH !Rf^T 1Nt W^ 4 3H^fe)T qft 3t^ ^ aiiqrcft qfl ^. ^fK W affBR^ 31'(4l*l>i f^ff 'TOT I" A perusal of this part of the order would show that the FamUy Court has never said that the dociuucnts are proved and it has not inade auy conunents regarding admissibility of fhe dociunents, it has onty said that the objection is taken with regard to markiag exhibits over the documents aad such objection was oveiruled. Moreover, uader Section 14 ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984, it has been provided fhat a Family Court inay receive as evidence any report, statement, docuinents, information or inatter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal eifectuaUy with a dispute, whether or not the same would be ofherwise relevant or adinissible underthe Ixidian. Evidence Act, 1872. The question of adinissibiUly of the docuiuents has never been decided by the Family Court at that stage and it is open for bofh the parties to get it decided at fhe appropriate stage in accordaiice with law appUcable ia the inatter. 'x' '%--^y./ 'VcsssseW' W.P.(.C)No.7522/2007 Shyna I do not find aay uTegularity ia such action taken by fhe Familv Court. With the above observations, fhis pctition staads fmnlty disposed of. ^~, ~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge