Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with interlocutory orders — Matrimonial proceedings — Rejection of application to receive electronic evidence (pen drive) — Scope —
Civil Revision Petition filed challenging docket order of trial Court rejecting application filed in matrimonial proceedings to receive electronic evidence in the form of pen drive containing video recordings allegedly depicting conduct of spouse — Trial Court held that such material was not necessary for adjudication and that not every incident in matrimonial life requires proof through such electronic material — Held, order is discretionary and based on relevance and necessity of evidence — No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error shown — Interference under Article 227 not warranted.
(Paras 3, 6, 9)
Evidence — Matrimonial disputes — Electronic evidence — Relevance and necessity —
Held, in matrimonial proceedings, adjudication must be based on relevant pleadings and legally admissible evidence — Production of voluminous or intrusive electronic material is not required unless such material is foundationally pleaded and necessary for deciding core issues — Trial Court justified in refusing to receive such evidence where not essential.
(Para 6)
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory application — Discretion of trial Court —
Held, decision whether to receive additional evidence is within discretion of trial Court — Such discretion, when exercised judiciously on relevance and necessity, cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction.
(Paras 3, 9)
Article 227 — Scope and limits —
Held, power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their authority — Interference is warranted only in cases of patent perversity, gross illegality, or failure of justice — Mere disagreement with discretionary order is not a ground for interference.
(Paras 7–8, 9)
Directions / Result —
Held, Civil Revision Petition dismissed at admission stage — No interference with order of trial Court.
(Para 10)
RATIO DECIDENDI
An interlocutory order of the trial Court refusing to receive electronic evidence in matrimonial proceedings, based on assessment of relevance and necessity, does not warrant interference under Article 227 in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error, as supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correcting grave illegality and not to reappreciating discretionary decisions.
