THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.4306 of 2009 ORDER: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place way back in the year 1985. They lived together, almost for two decades happily. The respondent filed O.P.No.44 of 2008, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the petitioner deserted her from the matrimonial life. Enquiry into that O.P., is said to be in progress. The petitioner filed I.A.No.208 of 2009, in that O.P., with a prayer to obtain sample voice of the respondent, so that it can be sent along with C.Ds., marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2 for ‘Speech Spectrographic Test’, to an Expert. It was stated that the petitioner recorded abusive language, alleged to have been used by the respondent, during the conversation and preserved the same in a C.D. The respondent opposed the application, by denying the alleged conversation as well as the legality of the prayer. Through its order, dated 13.08.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the speech that was recorded and preserved in Exs.B.1 and B.2,would throw light upon the nature of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and that the same would be useful in adjudication of the O.P. Learned counsel contends that the trial Court dismissed the I.A., purely on mechanical grounds. The respondent approached the trial Court with an original petition under Section 9 of the Act, against the petitioner. The scope of the enquiry in that O.P., is very limited. No substantial rights, as such, would be adjudicated. At the most, it would find justification, or absence thereof, on the part of one party, in not keeping company with the other. The I.A., filed by the petitioner herein is totally outside the enquiry in the O.P. He wanted to demonstrate that the respondent used abusive language against him, and to plead that as a justification, in not joining her company. The contents of the I.A., itself were self-contradictory. One the one hand, it was pleaded that the alleged abusive language was used in the course of conversation, whereas it was mentioned that the C.Ds. contain the speech of the respondent. Serious doubt exists, as to the accuracy of the process of recording. It is not uncommon, in these days, that manipulations are resorted to by individuals, in their anxiety to create evidence to sub- serve their purposes. At any rate, in Rayala M.Bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphanender Rayala[1], this Court deprecated the practice of recording the conversation of wife by her husband, and held that even if it is proved, it is inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court examined the matter on correct lines and dismissed the I.A. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.09.2009 GJ [1] 2008 (2) ALD 311