Coming to the case on hand, the certificate enclosed by the husband reads that the electronic statement was taken from Jio official website and that the website is in order without any malfunction. One can take judicial notice of the fact that call history can be obtained by reaching out to the website of the concerned telecom service provider from the mobile phone. The user of the device would get OTP. After authentication, the information sought for will be provided which can be downloaded. A cursory perusal of Ex.P4 would show that the mobile phone belonged to the wife and the husband had access to the same. When the mobile phone with the sim card was in the custody of the husband, he had reached out to the telecom service provider (Jio) and obtained the call data. The certificate filed by the husband is no certificate at all. It is not a defective certificate. It is not the case of the husband that he wrote to the service provider and there was no response. The call history was downloaded from Jio website. Therefore, only a person occupying a responsible official position in Jio could have issued the certificate. The husband/respondent herein could not have issued a self serving certificate. Therefore, the case on hand will fall outside the caveat laiddown in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ex.P4 ought to have been accompanied by a certificate as contemplated in Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court below could not have deferred taking a decision in the matter. {Para 8}
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
CRP(MD)No.2362 of 2024
R..... ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent
vs.
1.B..... ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology
(MEITY), Government of India,
New Delhi. ... 2nd respondent
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Pronounced on : 30.10.2024.
Read full Judgement here: Click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment