Rajan Skariah vs Vincy Mathew @ Vincy Rajan

C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner in OP.(DIV).No.643 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, against the order in I.A.No.19/2021, dismissing the above application.

The petitioner filed the above O.P under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, against his wife seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. After the evidence of both sides was closed, the petitioner filed Exhibit P6 application praying for re-opening his evidence to recall PW4, the Manager, Federal Bank, Chunkathara Branch to call for some documents. As per Exhibit P10 order, the Family Court dismissed the above application on the ground that the same witness was examined much earlier and at that time, no steps were taken by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order dismissing Exhibit P6 I.A, he preferred this petition.

According to the petitioner, he has already produced Exhibit A29, A31 and A33 documents, which are bank statements of the Federal Bank, Chunkathara Branch. However those documents are not certified copies, duly certified as per the provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act. Therefore, the Bank Manager is to be summoned again and he is to be directed to produce certified copy of those documents.

Exhibit P1 is the copy of the O.P. filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, which is one for divorce alone under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act. As per Exhibit P6, he wanted to prove Exhibits A29, A31, and A33 to prove that certain items of property was purchased using his own money. It appears that at his own instance, the very same Manager (PW4) was already examined and Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 bank statements were marked. According to him, those documents are not duly certified as per the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for not taking any steps well in time, when PW4 was examined. Since Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 were already marked, the defect, if any in those documents as pointed out by the petitioner could be rectified if the petitioner produces duly certified copy of those documents from the bank, after giving an application to the Manager concerned. For the said purpose, there is no necessity to examine PW4 again.

In the above circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

In the result, this Original Petition (Family Court) is dismissed. However, It is open to the petitioner to get duly certified copies of Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 from the Bank concerned and to produce before the Family Court within a period of ten days from today.