THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6081 OF 2009 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 26.08.2009 in I.A. No.900 of 2009 in O.P. No.441 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy district, whereunder and whereby application filed under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act, 1872’) to send Ex.P3 along with vakalatnama of the respondent to hand-writing expert for comparison of disputed and admitted signatures and opinion, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are, the petitioner is husband of the respondent. He filed the Original Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent for grant of divorce. In the Original Petition, a specific plea has been taken by the petitioner that the respondent took away all the belongings with her and signed in the document, which is marked as Ex.P3. That said document is also filed along with the petition. The respondent/wife is seriously denying about execution of Ex.P3 and denying her signatures therein. When the document was confronted to the respondent, she denied the signature therein and contents thereof. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 47 of the Act, 1872 to send the said document along with the admitted signatures to the expert for comparison and report. That petition was dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. A specific plea has been taken by the petitioner stating that Ex.P3 was executed by his wife duly taking away all the articles mentioned therein. When the said document was confronted to the respondent/R.W.1, she denied the same. Therefore, from the material available on record, it is clear that the respondent is disputing about her signature in Ex.P3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ex.P3 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the Original Petition. Therefore, to prove the case of the petitioner, opinion of the expert is imperative. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the order under challenge needs no interference by this court because the court can as well compare the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures. No doubt, under Section 73 of the Act, 1872, the court is empowered to compare disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures. But, at the same, when there is serious dispute, it is well settled that the court cannot take the role of an expert. For that proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & another[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 15) “While there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/ signature/finger impression, such comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position to identify the characteristics of finger prints, the court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal. The decision in Muralilal (supra) and lalit Popli (supra) should not be construed as laying a proposition that the court is bound to compare the disputed and admitted finger impressions and record a finding thereon, irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger impression. When there is a positive denial by the person who is said to have affixed his finger impression and where the finger impression in the disputed document is vague or smudgy or not clear, making it difficult for comparison, the court should hesitate to venture a decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger impressions. Further even in cases where the court is constrained to take up such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. Necessarily, the judgment should contain the reasons for any conclusion based on comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record a finding thereon. The court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or routine glance or perusal.” So, from the above decision of the Apex Court, it is clear that comparison by court without assistance of an expert, is always hazardous and risky. These aspects have not been considered by the trial court in right perspective. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 26.08.2009 in I.A. No.900 of 2009 in O.P. No.441 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy district is set aside, and consequently, I.A. No.900 of 2009 stands allowed. No costs. --------------------- 17.2.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6081 OF 2009 17.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6081 OF 2009 17.2.2011 Between: M.Srinivasa Sastry …Petitioner And M.Sri Lalitha …Respondent [1] 2008 (3) ALD 112 (SC)