The Kerala High Court on Monday, 14th day of January 2019 in the case of Pramod E.K. v. Louna V.C. has held that "the hearsay which is inherently inadmissible cannot be acknowledged as an evidence in any proceeding before a Family Court."
A bench comprising of C.K. Abdul Rehim & T.V. Anilkumar, JJ. observed that "the Family Courts though not bound by the sophisticated rules of relevancy or admissibility of evidence by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, in our opinion, should not, however be understood to possess unregulated or unbridled power or freedom to receive in evidence indiscriminately all matters that are brought before them."
"Any undue and excessive liberal interpretation put on Section 14 of the Act may only produce mischievous and disaster result and even do disservice to the system. While interpreting Section 14, only the true legislative object should be given effect to and promoted and any mischief suppressed."
The argument of the petitioner is that the Family Court failed to notice and to give effect to Section 14 of the Family Courts 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.
See Also : Whether Compact Disc (CD) Produced before Family Court could be Admitted in Evidence
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).”
While authoring the Judgment Justice T.V. Anilkumar held that 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 under Section 20 of the Act. The technicalities of the Evidence Act should not be imported to the proceeding before the Family Courts in view of the provisions in Section 14 of the Act.
"The legal system of our country has always the tradition of observing ordinary principles of proof and natural justice even in situations where authorities of law deciding cases are not bound or governed by the Evidence Act 1872."
"Section 14 of the Act is only aimed at mitigating the rigour of sophisticated rules of relevancy and admissibility of the Evidence Act, rather than annihilating the very fundamental rules of proof and natural justice inherent in an ideal legal system."
"We are therefore, of the view that the Family Courts absolved from the trauma of observing rules of relevancy and admissibility of evidence envisaged by the Evidence Act 1872, are nonetheless bound to adhere to the fundamental rules of evidence based on logic, fairness and expediency and also principles of natural justice." the bench said.