THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3726 OF 2011 Date: 18.10.2011 Between: K.Ramana Murthy …..Petitioner And Bejjipuram Sailaja …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3726 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision has been filed challenging the order, dated 12.7.2011, in I.A.No.12 of 2011 in M.O.P.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Both are working as Teachers and blessed with two children. Husband filed M.O.P.No.19 of 2009 for divorce on the ground that the respondent, after marriage, converted into Christianity. It is alleged that soon after arrival from the school, she starts reading of the Bible and insists the petitioner to sit her behind and follow the Bible reading. He videographed reading of the Bible by the respondent and offering prayer to Jesus. It is also alleged that on every Sunday she used to go to Church and has been neglecting the petitioner, though residing under one roof. 3. Earlier the petitioner filed I.A.No.47 of 2010 with a similar prayer to receive the cassette C.D., however, that application was dismissed on the ground that there is no reference about the cassette C.D. in the main petition. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the said order and subsequently, he has filed the present application. In the present application, he did not refer about the dismissal of the earlier application. He has also not mentioned the particulars as to when, where and on what date by whom the videographs have taken. In the above circumstances, the lower court again dismissed the application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the Act), submits that “a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute; whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)”. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment reported in the case of Pittala Srinivasa Rao v. Kuruvella Laxminarayana[1] supporting his contention that “once an application has been dismissed, subsequent application for identical relief is not maintainable”. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner did not whisper about the dismissal of earlier I.A.No.47 of 2010 in his affidavit. Admittedly, the application for the same relief was earlier dismissed. Therefore, in the light of referred decision of this Court in Pittala Srinivasa Rao’s case stated supra, another application for identical relief appears to be not maintainable. There is no dispute that the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information, etc. under Section 14 of the Act. 8. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 18th October, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3726 OF 2011 DATE: 18.10.2011 [1] 2011 (5) ALT 461