Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8568 (UTT)

DINESH CHANDRA TIWARI v. HEMLATA TIWARI

AO/262/2024 · 2025-07-16

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6185-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS AO/262/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, challenging order dated 28.05.2024, passed by learned Judge Family Court, Haldwani in Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2021. By the said order, prayer made by appellant for sending his mobile phones to Forensic Science Laboratory was rejected. 3. Marriage between the parties was dissolved on a joint petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act vide order dated 02.02.2021. Respondent (wife) filed a recall application with the contention that divorce was obtained by the husband by playing fraud. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2021. 4. Before the Family Court, appellant contended that the stand taken by respondent for seeking recall of the order dated 02.02.2021 is not correct and this fact is corroborated by the WhatsApp chat between the parties. He prayed that his cell phones be sent for examination to 2025:UHC:6185-DB Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. The respondent opposed the prayer made by appellant by contending that WhatsApp chat can be manipulated and tampered with; therefore, no value can be attached to WhatsApp messages. She further contended that the application has been filed by the appellant to delay the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that WhatsApp messages can be manipulated, therefore, no credence can be given to such messages. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing a while seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to move application seeking examination of signatures of the respondent in the petition and order sheet of Family Court by handwriting expert. 8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to appellant to move appropriate application before the Court concerned. The application if made, shall be considered as per law. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.07.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a 92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D 305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 17:13:53 +05'30' 2025:UHC:6185-DB