CRP/3523/2025 of Dr. G.Sai Snigdha Bhashitha Vs Dr. Dasari Sai Sarath on 16 February 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO R=Tl7 7l'trIi Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 26-05-2025 Passed in l.A.No. 104 of 2o2s in F.c.o.p.No. 149 of 2024 on the file of the court of the Family court-cum-ll Additional District Judge at Hanumakonda. Dr. G.sai snigdha Bhashitha, d/o. Dr. Madhusudana prasad, aged abour 27 years, occ senior Resident in Dermatorogy / at MGM/KMC at fanmakonda, R/o. H.No.6-2-46lA, Road No.4, Kakaji Cotony, Hanamkonda, HanamktnOa District. AND ...petitioner/ petitioner/ petitioner Dr. Dasari sai sarath, s/o. Dasari srinivas Rao, Aged about 2g years, occ Resident in Department of Gastroenterorogy at Sri Ramachandra Medicar college/Hospital, chennai, r/o. Flat tto. co, SrR Encrave, Journarist Corony, Jubilee Hills, Road No.70, Hyderabad, presenfly residing at rut rrto.taogt, 8th floor, Tower 18c, prestage Beila vista, ryyappan Thaglr, porur, chennai. ...RespondenU RespondenU Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Nadipally Ananda Rao Counsel forthe Respondent : Ms. Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth Shivani The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDIRABAD THE HON'ELE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO 16th Februaryr 2o.26 CruIL REVISION PETITION No.3523 OF 2o25 Between: Dr. G. 5ql g;nigdha Bhashitha ...Petitioner AND Dr. Dasari llai Sarath ...Respondent OItETsTil This C)ivil Revision Petition is fiIed being aggrieved by the order date<l 26.O5.2O25 passed in I.A.No.1O4 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.149 of 2024 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-ll Additional District Judge at Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Ravikanth Shivani, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed F.C.O.P. No. 149 of 2024 before the Family Court-cum- II Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of marriage dated O2.O9.2O23. It was further submitted that both the parties are doctors and the marriage was not consummated due to the respondent's incompetency and psychological incompatibility, and that, on medical advice, there was no possibility of continuation of marital life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner filed certain documents along with the main petition, some documents could not be filed earlier as they were submitted before the District Legal Services Authority during counselling. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A. No. lO4 of 2025 under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C to permit her to lead secondary evidence, to mark the downloaded Whatsapp messages (Text Message Screenshots), Photostat copies, pen drives and photographs.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations, including incompetency, and sought dismissal oI the petition.

6. The l,--arned trial Court while dismissing the application by order dated 26.O5.2O25, observed as follows:- '...8. (i) In the present case on hand, the petitioner sought permission of this court to receive electronic records viz. photostat copies of text messages and downloaded copies of photogra.phs, screen shots, pendrives etc.

(ii) Now, it is to be seen, whether the requirement of certificate mentionr:d under Section 65-8 (a) is a mandatory pre-condition before producing a secondary evidence as a document/primary evidence? Any <locumentary evidence by way of an electronic record shall be proved only u,hen accompanied by a certificate as prescribr'd under Section 65-8 (41. In absence of such certificat,3, secondary evidence of electronic records/computer output is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, it is a mandatory requirement uncler Section 65-8 (41 that a certificate be provided when electronic evidence is offered as secondary evidence. This certificate must specify the details of how the electroni<: record was produced and how it was maintained. Without t-his certihcate, electronic evidence is generally deemed inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court has emphasized that oral evidence cannot substitute for the required certificate. The exception to this rule is to produce original electronic record itself as primary evidence.

9. (i) Though, the petitioner sought permission of this court to receive electronic evidence but, the petitioner has not filed requisite certificate under section 65-8 of the Act. Further, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions mentioned u/s 65 B (21 (3) of Indian Evidence Act. This point is answered accordingly.

10. IN THE RESULT, this interlocutory application is dismissed, no order as to costs..."

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in the absence of the requisite certificate under Section 65-8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the documents sought to be produced cannot be admitted in evidence.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the certificate under Section 65-8 of Indian Evidence Act, disclosing the source from which the photocopy was obtained, the concerned mobile number and the source from which the printouts were taken. It is further submitted that all the said particulars are mentioned in the proposed certificate and that the respondent is at liberty to / /

question the same by leading evidence of the persons whose narnes are mentioned therein.

9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the order dated 26.05.2025 in I.A.No.104 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.L49 of 2024 is set aside. 'lhe petitioner is at liberty to file the certificate under Section 65-8 of Indian Evidence Act before the trial Court within a period of orLe month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. Accor,lingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. N.C DRA SEKHAR RAO PUTY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Family Court-Cum-ll Additional District J Hanumakonda

2. One CC 1:o Sri. Nadipally Ananda Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC lo [Vls. Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth Shivani, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD (lopies DL/PSL

HIGH COURT DATED: 1610212026

ORDER

CRP.No.3523 of 2025 CRP IS DISPOSED OF ':-' )K fH a 5 t' o D2 * to lut t, b (, 1:. a 6 u;l taz6 PATCHT f) +