Introduction:

In the matter titled L v RD [FA-866-2021], the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice B.P. Sharma, delivered a significant judgment while affirming a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in favour of the husband on the ground of adultery, wherein the primary evidence relied upon comprised photographs of the wife in compromising circumstances. The court was called upon to determine whether such photographs, being electronic evidence, could be relied upon without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The bench held that the technical requirements of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable in matrimonial disputes and that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act empowers courts to receive any document, report, or information that may assist in discovering the truth, irrespective of strict admissibility standards. The wife had approached the High Court contending that the Family Court erred in relying on secondary electronic evidence without the mandatory certification required to establish authenticity. The bench, however, found no illegality or perversity in the impugned decree and reiterated the wide discretion given to Family Courts in determining the veracity of material placed before them.

Arguments Of The Wife:

The appellant-wife argued that the Family Court committed a substantial legal error by admitting and relying upon photographic evidence that did not comply with Section 65B of the Evidence Act. She asserted that the photographs were electronic records and thus inadmissible unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate confirming the mode and manner of production. She argued that the Family Court not only bypassed statutory requirements but also failed to appreciate that the photographs, being susceptible to manipulation, could not form the basis of a finding of adultery. She further submitted that the Family Court wrongly invoked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act despite the present matter not being a conventional matrimonial dispute, as the allegations involved criminal wrongdoing and therefore demanded strict adherence to evidentiary rules. She claimed that the photographs were fabricated using digital techniques and that the Family Court should not have accepted them without requiring proof of their authenticity. She insisted that the decree of divorce was based on conjecture and surmise rather than credible evidence.

Arguments Of The Husband:

The husband defended the decree of the Family Court and submitted that the photographs were genuine, candid, and undisputed visual representations of the wife’s adulterous conduct. He contended that the wife never denied the existence of the photographs during trial but merely alleged manipulation without offering any explanation as to who could have manipulated them or why. He further highlighted the wife’s admission during cross-examination that the photographs had been transferred from her phone to his, which corroborated their authenticity. He asserted that the breaking of her mobile phone by him was a natural emotional response to discovering her extramarital involvement. He argued that technicalities relating to admissibility under the Evidence Act cannot be allowed to obstruct justice in matrimonial cases, where the Family Court’s primary objective is to ascertain the truth rather than adhere to rigid evidentiary formalities. He also argued that the conduct of the wife during the proceedings, including evasive answers and failure to produce any contrary evidence, strengthened the inference that she had indeed engaged in adulterous behaviour.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act gave broad latitude to Family Courts to receive as evidence any document, report, statement, or information that may assist the court in effectively resolving a dispute. The court observed that such wide discretion was granted precisely because matrimonial matters require a more flexible approach to evidence, given the sensitive nature of relationships, the complexity of human behaviour, and the practical difficulty of obtaining rigidly formal proof of acts such as adultery. The bench explicitly held that the Indian Evidence Act does not apply with full technical rigour in proceedings before Family Courts. The court noted that the appellant-wife did not deny that the photographs existed. Instead, she claimed that they were manipulated but failed to explain who might have manipulated them or how. Her admission that the photographs were originally on her phone before being transferred to her husband’s phone was considered significant, as it indicated that the source of the photographs was her own device. The bench found the husband’s reaction of breaking her phone to be a natural emotional response consistent with a person discovering an extramarital relationship. The court held that the Family Court was justified in relying on the photographs even in the absence of a Section 65B certificate, because matrimonial courts are empowered to consider any evidence that may help them ascertain the truth. The High Court stated that the purpose of Section 65B is to ensure authenticity; however, when the source of the document is admitted and no plausible alternative explanation is offered, strict compliance becomes secondary to the larger objective of truth-finding. The court emphasized that matrimonial disputes do not always lend themselves to direct evidence and often require reliance on circumstantial material, behavioural patterns, and reasonable inference. The High Court concluded that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, correctly invoked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, and correctly drawn an inference of adultery. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree of divorce was affirmed. The ruling underscored that matrimonial proceedings are governed by the principle of substantive justice over procedural rigidity. The court reaffirmed that in matrimonial disputes, Family Courts are not bound by the strict application of the Indian Evidence Act and must be given sufficient freedom to evaluate all materials that may assist in uncovering the truth. The judgment thus reinforces the special character of Family Courts and their authority to deviate from procedural technicalities when necessary to achieve justice.