CD is relevant to divorce case, verify it later: HC

MUMBAI: In response to the divorce case filed by Meher Mistry, Navroze Mistry, now based in Pune, had levelled allegations against Meher, and sought to confront her with her personal diary and telephone conversations during cross-examination.
Meher's lawyers, Narayan Suvarna and Ansuya Dutt, said that Mistry had not notified them or mentioned the CD in the list of documents that he was going to rely on.The lawyers argued that Mistry could have recorded it on an audio-cassette, MP3 player, Dictaphone, computer or even his mobile phone, but the original recording was not produced. Advocate Taubon Irani, Mistry's counsel, said an application had been made to verify Meher's voice.
The court did not agree with Meher's lawyers that the CD's contents and transcript could not be used during the cross-examination. The HC referred to the Civil Procedure Code that allows a party to produce documents for the first time during cross-examination.
The court said that the stage of verifying the authenticity of the tapes would come later. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the HC said that the tapes would have to pass three tests-relevance, identification of the voice, and accuracy of the taped conversation.
Since the content of the tapes reportedly comprise Meher asking Mistry to leave her father's house, the court said that it was relevant to the divorce proceedings.
The question of identification of the voice would arise if Meher denied that it was her voice. Mistry could then identity the voice or through witnesses or as a last resort seek the opinion of a forensic expert. To prove the accuracy of the conversations, Mistry would have to produce the original recordings, the HC said.
"If the tests are not passed, the tape-recorded conversation will be of no use ultimately,'' the judge observed.
Meher's lawyers raised doubts on the CD's authenticity, claiming it was not sealed, but the court declined to accept the argument. The judge said the requirement of sealing would be applicable only in a criminal case where the investigation officer seals intercepted conversations. "When the defendant himself has recorded a conversation of the plaintiff as a party in a civil suit (and) is required to keep custody of his own documents, there is no question of the requirement of sealing. It has nevertheless to be shown to be accurate and untampered with,'' the judge said.
(Names of the couple have been changed to protect their identities)