Legal provisions involved: Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984

Judgement by: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bench/Judge: Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Bhagwati Prasad Sharma

Facts

The husband was granted divorce by the Family Court on the ground of adultery after producing mobile photographs of the wife with another man. The wife appealed, arguing that the photographs were secondary electronic evidence and were inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Key legal provisions

• Section 13 HMA (grounds of divorce)
• Section 65B Evidence Act (electronic evidence)
• Section 14 Family Courts Act (relaxed admissibility standards).

Issues raised

• Whether electronic photographs can be relied upon in a matrimonial case without a Section 65B certificate?
• Whether the Family Court erred in granting divorce based on such material?

Arguments of the case

The appellant relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) to argue that Section 65B compliance is mandatory. She also claimed the photographs were fabricated and that her phone was broken by the husband. The husband defended the authenticity of the images and produced the photographer as a witness.

Judgement

The MP High Court held that Section 65B is not mandatory in matrimonial disputes because Section 14 of the Family Courts Act allows the court to receive any material that helps ascertain the truth. The wife never clearly denied being in the photographs and failed to explain how they were allegedly manipulated. The husband’s act of breaking her phone was considered natural given the circumstances. With the photographer’s testimony supporting the photographs, the Court upheld the divorce decree.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.