{"id":203241,"date":"2018-10-06T19:00:07","date_gmt":"2018-10-06T13:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=203241"},"modified":"2018-10-18T12:57:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-18T07:27:26","slug":"unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of an unsigned document in the Family Court.<\/p>\n

The complaint of the appellant was that an unsigned document in the absence of original being available was exhibited in the Family Court. PW-2, Inspector concerned, had admitted in her cross-examination that the document (copy of the closure report) did not contain her signatures. The appellant submitted that Section 14 or 20 of the Family Courts Act would not be applicable to the instant case.<\/p>\n

The High Court was of the view that the appellant\u2019s submission had no force. In her, examination-in-chief, PW-2 categorically deposed that the said document was a photocopy of the report which was prepared and typed by her<\/em>. She testified that it was correct that the said copy of the closure report was not signed by her but ordinarily such reports are signed and admitted and the original may contain her signatures. Furthermore, reading Section 14 made it clear that the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may in its opinion assist it to deal effectively with the dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that it was not correct to say that the closure report was false and fabricated. No infirmity was found in the order impugned. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. [Sangeeta Gera v. Sanjeev Gera,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11675<\/b><\/a>, dated 16-08-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[32006,2521,32007,32005],"class_list":["post-203241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-admissible","tag-Evidence","tag-section-14-family-courts-act","tag-unsigned-closure-report"],"yoast_head":"\nUnsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-06T13:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T07:27:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/\",\"name\":\"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-06T13:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T07:27:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-06T13:30:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-18T07:27:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/","name":"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-10-06T13:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T07:27:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/unsigned-closure-report-held-to-be-admissible-in-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unsigned closure report held to be admissible in evidence under Section 14 of Family Courts Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":352235,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/03\/kerala-high-court-fir-on-online-complaint-abroad\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":0},"title":"Can police refuse an FIR for an unsigned email complaint from abroad? Kerala High Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSection 173 of the BNSS granted statutory recognition to the concept of Zero FIR, which now deals with the registration of FIRs in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"FIR on online complaint","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":49911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/01\/privilege-communication-between-husband-and-wife-is-not-available-in-family-court-proceedings\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":1},"title":"Privilege communication between husband and wife is admissible in Family Court proceedings","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a writ petition the Court has stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable to the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as it was submitted as Primary evidence,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":350932,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/illegally-procured-whatsapp-chat-in-matrimonial-dispute-is-admissible-as-evidence-under-section-14-of-family-courts-act-mp-high-court-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":2},"title":"Family Courts can admit WhatsApp chats procured without consent as evidence in matrimonial disputes: MP High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"June 19, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMerely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact\u2026 Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madhya Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":201306,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":3},"title":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the order of the family court whereby it granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife. It was contended by appellant that he wasn\u2019t given\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":217857,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/09\/chh-hc-fir-registered-by-victim-if-admissible-as-dying-declaration-if-the-victim-dies-before-examination-in-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":4},"title":"Chh HC | FIR registered by victim is admissible as dying declaration if the victim dies before examination in Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. disposed of a criminal appeal where he altered the conviction of the appellant from the one under Section 302\u00a0(punishment for murder) to that under Section 304 Part I (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder)\u00a0of the Penal Code. The appellant was convicted for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":225951,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/20\/del-hc-trial-courts-view-concurred-as-fsl-report-establishes-case-of-sexual-assault-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt\/","url_meta":{"origin":203241,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Trial Court\u2019s view upheld as FSL Report establishes case of \u201csexual assault of minor\u201d beyond any reasonable doubt","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the decision of the trial court for offences charged under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 342\/363\/376 of Penal Code, 1860. In the present appeal filed by the appellant was convicted by the trial court for the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}