APHC010106572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 658/2026 Between: 1. PAMIDI ANUDEEP, S/O CHINNA SUBBANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ALAKURAPADU VILLAGE, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT HCL TECHNOLOGIES CANADA, INC., 580, GRANVILLE STREET, VANCOUVER, BC V6C 1W8, CANADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TAMMINENI VYSHNAVI, D/o Tammineni Narasimha Rao, W/o Pamidi Anudeep, Aged about 24 years Hindu, Housewife, R/o Door No.3-65, Chagallu Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the revision while setting aside order dated 04-02- 2026 passed in I.A. No. 477 of 2 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 2025 in H.M.O.P. No. 101 of 2023, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 101 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIKHIL CHOWDARY GUNTUPALLI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following: 3 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.02.2026 in I.A.No.477 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, whereby the said I.A filed by the revision petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner/wife for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent/husband filed counter denying the averments of the petitioner. Pending the H.M.O.P, one I.A.No.477 of 2025 was filed by the respondent with a prayer to send the pendrive containing Audio call recordings, video calls, emails, whatsapp photos and videos and instagram photos and videos, for confirmation of genuineness of such material to the A.P.Forensic Scientific Labs.. 4 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating as under:- “4. It is the case of this respondent, that the petitioner herein created obscene and nude videos of her by morphing, that he shared them to public by opening fake instagram and whatsapp accounts in the name of this respondent and also through emails to several people, that the petitioner herein also created several fake business accounts in the name of this respondent and shared several morphed obscene/nude photos of her to public, parents, friends and relatives of this respondent, that this respondent lodged a report with the police and after due investigation, police laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and others after getting a report from Cyber Analysis Wing, Nellore etc., 5. When this respondent herself contends that the photos are created and morphed and that the instagram, whatsapp and emails accounts are fake, question of ascertaining whether they are genuine or not is meaningless and does not serve any purpose.” 6. The trial Court by an impugned order dismissed I.A.No.477 of 2025. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred this C.R.P. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court without appreciating the true scope, objects and relevance of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly in relation to electronic and digital evidence, dismissed the petition on erroneous grounds. The learned trial court erred in confining its consideration only to the allegation of the respondent that the entire electronic material is fake and created one. The learned 5 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 Trial Court failed to appreciate that even assuming the material is alleged to be fake, the crucial issue that requires for adjudication is whether the petitioner herein had shared or disseminated the said material, the said fact can be established or disproved only through the forensic and expert examination and not by oral evidence or pleadings. The refusal to send the pen-drive for expert examination, it amounts to forecloses the only scientific and objective mode available to ascertain the origin, source, metadata, transmission history and device linkage of the electronic material, thereby causing serious and irreparable prejudice to the defence of the petitioner herein. The learned trial Court misdirected itself in law in holding that since the respondent-wife herself alleges the electronic material to be fake, the question of ascertaining genuineness does not arise, thereby prejudging the issue and accepting the allegation without trial or proof, which is impermissible at the interlocutory stage. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that expert opinion as envisaged under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is sought precisely when fabrication, manipulation or misuse of electronic material is alleged, and refusal of such opinion defeats the very purpose of scientific evidence in judicial adjudication. The learned 6 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 trial court erroneously relied upon pendency of criminal proceedings and police investigation to decline expert examination, without appreciating that matrimonial proceedings require independent appreciation of evidence and also to the principles of law that the findings in criminal proceedings are neither binding nor conclusive in H.M.O.P. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Court below has rightly held that the entire record can be sent for expert opinion only after completion of the cross-examination, and the Court below came to the conclusion whether it is necessary to get expert opinion or not and without completion of the evidence, as was prayed for sending expert opinion and which is at the discretionary of the Court below. He further submits that once the Court below is able to resolve the dispute basing on the evidence available on the record, there is no need of getting expert opinion as sought by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court below at this juncture, rightly held that there is no necessity for calling for expert opinion, without conclusion of the cross-examination of the parties. 7 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 9. Perused the material on record. It is settled law that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is a discretionary relief and can be ordered at the discretionary of the Court. If the Court below is able to resolve the dispute between the parties basing upon the evidence available on record, after completion of evidence, there is no need of getting any expert opinion. If the Court is unable to come to any conclusion basing upon the evidence on record without the assistance of expert opinion, the Court can suo-moto refer the subject material available, to the expert for its opinion or call upon the petitioner for filing an appropriate application for getting expert opinion. 10. The Court below in the order impugned clearly and categorically dealt with the claim of the petitioner in the H.M.O.P expressly and rightly held as under:- “9. So, from the above extracted portions, it is clear that the wife is claiming that her husband gained access to her personal accounts of social media and she is now claiming that all such material is fake material and created by her husband, as such, the material itself is fake material and the main allegation itself is that her husband had created the said material. 10. Hence, in the said circumstances, this Court is of the humble view that there is no need to send the said 8 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 material to the expert at present and the petitioner- husband shall be directed to cross-examine the respondent-wife who is ready for cross-examination and, if necessary, the petitioner may come up with such petition at a later point of time when he finds it necessary. The point is answered accordingly.” 11. On a perusal of the above, it is clear that the court below is very much conscious of the claim of the petitioner and the respondent in the main H.M.O.P. At this juncture, there is no necessity to order for expert opinion, since the cross examination of the parties is not completed and it is cautiously observed that after completion of the evidence, if it requires, the petitioner may come up with a petition for expert opinion. 12. In view of the clear and categorical order rendered by the Court below, which is in accordance with laws and also addressed the claim of the petitioner, therefore, for the reasons assigned as above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. 13. Further, as requested by the revision petitioner, after completion of the evidence, as observed by the Court below, if it is still required, he is entitled to file a petition under Section 45 of the Act, and if it is necessary, for getting expert opinion, if he is able to produce the material for such opinion. 9 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 14. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 31.03.2026 LLSSPP 0 10 NV,J C.R.P.NO.658 OF 2025 350 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 658/2026 31.03.2026 LLSSPP