Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while adjudicating, upheld the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, and refused to interfere with the findings on electronic evidence central to the dispute. The Court made a significant observation that Family Courts may rely on any material that assists effective adjudication, “whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act,” underscoring the wide discretionary scope under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
Brief Facts:
The dispute traces its origin to a marriage solemnized on 20.11.2009 at Jabalpur between the appellant–wife and the respondent–husband, from which a son, Arnav, was born on 24.11.2010. Differences arose soon after, and the parties began living separately from 08.04.2012. The respondent filed Civil Suit (originally filed at Bengaluru on 13.06.2012 and later transferred to Jabalpur) seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and adultery. Parallelly, the appellant initiated multiple proceedings, including an FIR under Section 498A IPC, a complaint under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, applications under Section 125 CrPC, Section 9 HMA, and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
By a judgment dated 06.01.2017, the Family Court decreed divorce, awarded Rs 5,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor son, and granted Rs 3,00,000/- as stridhan. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present first appeal challenging findings on adultery, cruelty, and the adequacy of monetary relief.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the finding of adultery was legally unsustainable because the electronic evidence, emails, chats, images, and logs, originated from a keylogger software installed by the respondent, a software engineer with full control over the device and its passwords. It was submitted that such material consisted of forwarded messages easily editable and failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. She further alleged that the cyber expert relied upon by the respondent was his friend, rendering the testimony unreliable.
The appellant also contended that the Family Court misread her testimony and drew unwarranted inferences from photographs and chats that lacked direct evidence of adultery. On monetary relief, she argued that Rs 3 lakhs as stridhan and Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance were grossly inadequate, especially given the respondent’s alleged annual income of Rs 24 lakhs, and sought enhancement to Rs 35,000 per month for the child and Rs 50 lakhs as permanent alimony.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent supported the Family Court’s decree, asserting that all electronic evidence was duly proved through certificates compliant with Section 65-B and that no objection was raised during trial, thus, such objections cannot be entertained at the appellate stage in view of Sonu v. State of Haryana. He contended that the appellant subjected him to severe mental cruelty by lodging multiple frivolous criminal and quasi-criminal cases, all of which were dismissed, and by making defamatory insinuations against family members. Regarding maintenance, the respondent argued that the appellant was highly qualified and earning approximately Rs 50 lakhs annually, as recorded in a Domestic Violence Act proceeding dated 31.05.2025, and hence, she neither required nor deserved enhanced maintenance or permanent alimony. He justified the stridhan award of Rs 3 lakhs as fair and reasonable.
Observation of the Court:
The Court began by examining the objection to electronic evidence, noting that Family Courts are not fettered by the strict admissibility norms of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the Bench stated that a Family Court may consider “any report, statement, document, information or matter which may assist it in effectively adjudicating the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise admissible under the Evidence Act.”Accordingly, the appellant’s objections to keylogger-derived material were rejected as hyper-technical and unsustainable, particularly since no objection was raised at the stage of exhibition.
The Court further observed that the expert witness could not be discredited merely because he knew the respondent, holding that “relationship alone, without demonstrable falsehood, concealment, or failure of expertise, cannot undermine credibility.” On the standard of proof, the Bench relied on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, reiterating that matrimonial disputes require only a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Adultery, the Court stressed, is “ordinarily proved by circumstantial evidence,” and direct proof is rarely available. The cumulative material, emails, chats, photographs, digital logs, created a clear chain of circumstances establishing an intimate relationship inconsistent with the marital bond.
On the issue of cruelty, the Court noted the appellant’s repeated initiation of unsubstantiated criminal proceedings and defamatory allegations as forming a pattern of conduct amounting to mental cruelty. Regarding financial relief, the Court found the appellant’s earning capacity to be substantial and her claims exaggerated, holding that the Family Court had awarded maintenance and stridhan after considering all relevant factors.
The decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court’s decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that electronic evidence introduced without objection at trial cannot be challenged subsequently and reiterated that Family Courts have wide discretion to consider all material that aids effective adjudication. The ratio decidendi rests on the principles that (i) matrimonial cases are governed by the preponderance of probabilities, (ii) circumstantial evidence is adequate to establish adultery, and (iii) Family Courts are empowered under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act to receive evidence beyond the strict confines of the Evidence Act.
Case Title: X Vs. Y
Case No.: First Appeal No. 101 of 2017
Coram: Justice Vishal Dhagat, Justice B. P. Sharma
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. P. L. Shrivastava
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Kaustubh Shankaer Jha
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
