High Court of Gujarat

SHASHIKANT HARIBHAI SOLANKIversusKIRANBEN W/O. SHASHIKANT SOLANKI AND D/O.JADAVBHAI PARMAR

Disposal: 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
Bench: C DOSHI

Holding

The Court held that the issue was improperly framed and re‑framed it to ask only whether the photographs are genuine.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the Family Court's framing of issues in a family suit, contending that the court erroneously placed both a positive and negative burden on the plaintiff by asking whether the photographs were "genuine" and also "not edited or morphed." The respondent conceded that the wording was contradictory. The High Court examined whether such oxymoronic phrasing was permissible, noting that an issue must place a clear burden on the party asserting a right. Finding the original issue improperly framed, the Court re‑phrased it to ask solely whether the photographs are genuine, without the redundant requirement of proving they are not edited. The petition was allowed to the extent of re‑framing the issue, without delving into the merits of the underlying dispute.

Issues considered

Whether the Family Court erred in framing an issue that simultaneously imposes a positive and negative burden on the plaintiff by requiring proof that photographs are both genuine and not edited or morphed

Subjects

family lawissue framingburden of proofevidencephotographsgenuinenesseditingprocedural law

Judgment

     C/SCA/2880/2026                           ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2880 of 2026
==========================================================
               SHASHIKANT HARIBHAI SOLANKI
                          Versus
KIRANBEN W/O. SHASHIKANT SOLANKI AND D/O.JADAVBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MONARCH K PANDYA(11437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DAKSH SOLANKI for DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                           Date : 19/06/2026

                               ORDER
1.    Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2.    Present petition is directed against framing of the issues
by the learned Family Court, Gir Somnath @ Veraval under
Exh.13 & 15 in Family Suit No.134 of 2025, more particularly,
issue No.1 below Exh.13 and issue No.2 in amended issues
below Exh.15, which reads as under:-

            “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the fifteen
            photographs filed by the plaintiff vide Exh.3/1 are
            genuine and not edited or morphed?

3.    According to learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the
petitioner, the learned Family Court has committed error in
putting negative and positive burden simultaneously upon the
petitioner.      He would further submit that if the documents
produced at Exh.3/1 are proved to be genuine ipso facto, then
automatically, they are proved to be not edited or morphed
ipso facto. Hence, He would further submit that the learned
Family Court has committed serious error in putting both the

                               Page 1 of 2
             C/SCA/2880/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




     words genuine and not edited or morphed in the issue and
     thus, according to learned advocate Mr. Pandya, the issue is
     not properly formulated.

     4.         On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Daksh Solanki
     appearing for learned advocate Mr.Denish Mavadhiya for the
     respondent fairly conceded that the issue cannot be framed by
     putting oxymoron words.                                 Therefore, it is prayed to pass
     necessary orders.

     5.         Considered rival submissions and considered the fact
     that the Court has to frame the issue to put a positive burden
     upon a person, who claim or assess the right. In the present
     case, the learned Family Court put oxymoron words in
     framing issue No.1. One one hand, the learned Family Court
     cast burden upon the plaintiff to prove the genuinity of the
     documents produced at Exh.3/1 and at the same time, also
     caste burden upon the plaintiff to prove that the said
     documents are not edited or morphed.

     6.         In view of above, without going into merits of the case
     any further, I replace and reframe the issue No.1 below
     Exh.13 and amended issue No.2 below Exh.15 as under:-

                      “Whether the plaintiff proves that the fifteen
                      photographs filed by the plaintiff vide Exh.3/1 are
                      genuine?

     7.         The petitioner is allowed to the aforesaid extent.



                                                                                                     (J. C. DOSHI,J)
     SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/06/2026 14:39:19

                                                           Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "family law"Sign in to search