The core question to be addressed in the present case is
whether the CD produced before the Family Court could be admitted
in evidence in the absence of certification under Section 65-B(4) of
the Indian Evidence Act.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the Family Court failed to notice and to give effect to Section 14
of the Family Courts Act (for short 'the Act') which empowers the
Family Courts to dispense with the application of the rigid rules of the
relevancy and admissibility of evidence incorporated in the Indian
Evidence Act 1872 to the proceedings before them and further erred
in refusing to receive the uncertified CD in evidence. The argument,
according to us, is legally sound and merits acceptance.
10. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:
“Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- 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).”
The words employed in the Section make it abundantly clear that, any
matter, information etc., placed before a Family Court may be
admitted in evidence uninhibited by the rules of relevancy and
admissibility prescribed by the Evidence Act, provided the Family
Court is of the opinion that the matter before it is essential for the
effective resolution of the dispute in the proceeding. Understood in
the light of the object and scheme of the Act, Section 14 of the Act
seems to convey the legislative intention that Family Court has
absolute freedom to depart from adopting the sophisticated and strict
rules of relevancy and admissibility applicable to the regular civil
courts in the country. The freedom of partial departure from the
Evidence Act helps the Family Courts prevent valuable information
and materials necessary for effective adjudication of disputes from
being shut out in the enquiries and trial. In effect, the rules of
relevancy and admissibility in the Evidence Act ought to be read
subject only to Section 14 of the Act. In the event of any
inconsistency emerging between the provisions of these two Acts,
Family Courts Act 1984 alone will prevail, thanks to Section 20 of the family courts Act.
In view of the overriding effect of the Section 14 of the Act on
the rules of admissibility in the Evidence Act, we hold that the CD
produced before the Family Court, Thalassery is admissible in
evidence, despite the fact that it was not certified as mandated by
Section 65-B(4) of the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
OP (FC).No. 513 of 2018
PRAMOD E.K. Vs LOUNA V.C.
Coram:
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
Dated:14th day of January 2019
Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 165, AIR 2019 Ker 85

