Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of an unsigned document in the Family Court.
The complaint of the appellant was that an unsigned document in the absence of original being available was exhibited in the Family Court. PW-2, Inspector concerned, had admitted in her cross-examination that the document (copy of the closure report) did not contain her signatures. The appellant submitted that Section 14 or 20 of the Family Courts Act would not be applicable to the instant case.
The High Court was of the view that the appellant’s submission had no force. In her, examination-in-chief, PW-2 categorically deposed that the said document was a photocopy of the report which was prepared and typed by her. She testified that it was correct that the said copy of the closure report was not signed by her but ordinarily such reports are signed and admitted and the original may contain her signatures. Furthermore, reading Section 14 made it clear that the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may in its opinion assist it to deal effectively with the dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that it was not correct to say that the closure report was false and fabricated. No infirmity was found in the order impugned. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. [Sangeeta Gera v. Sanjeev Gera,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11675, dated 16-08-2018]
