THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4019 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 09.08.2010, in I.A.No.348 of 2010 in F.C.O.P.No.09 of 2009, on the file of the Judge, Family Court – cum – Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondent herein, under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) read with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to receive certain documents to be marked as exhibits on behalf of the respondent herein, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without there being a prima facie case to show the relevancy of the documents sought to be marked, the trial Court simply ordered to receive the documents and therefore, it is a fit case where the impugned order has to be set aside. 3. Certain documents now sought to be received have not been filed by the respondent along with the written statement. The specific case of the respondent/RW.1 is that her financial matters are being looked after by her father since her childhood and therefore, she wants to mark certain documents, which are now sought to be received, through her father to establish her source of income. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C., a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. When the document sought to be marked was opposed by the petitioner herein, the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein. At this stage, the relevancy and admissibility of the documents cannot be tested and decided. Whether the said documents are relevant or not, can be decided at a later point of time. Receipt of documents at this stage can be subject to relevancy and admissibility. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that receipt of documents is subject to the relevancy and admissibility. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 08, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4019 OF 2010 Between: V. Upender Reddy .....PETITIONER AND V. Madhuma Reddy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4019 OF 2010 September 08, 2010