In a significant ruling concerning matrimonial disputes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a wife's appeal against a divorce decree, holding that the strict technicalities of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically regarding electronic evidence, do not bind Family Courts when ascertaining the truth.
The controversy stems from a divorce granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat, dissolving the marriage on the ground of adultery. Challenging this in the High Court, the wife (Appellant) argued that the trial court erred in law by relying on photographs to prove adultery. Her counsel contended that these photographs constituted "secondary evidence" and were admitted without the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.
The wife further claimed the photos were "trick photography" and narrated a dramatic sequence of events: she alleged the photos were transferred from her phone to her husband’s device, after which he smashed her mobile phone, implying the evidence was tampered with or illegally obtained.
The High Court rejected the wife's reliance on the Arjun Panditrao judgment, distinguishing the present matter as a matrimonial dispute governed by the special provisions of the Family Courts Act. The Bench clarified that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, a court may receive any document or report that assists in dealing effectively with a dispute, regardless of whether it is strictly admissible under the Evidence Act. On the factual front, the Court noted that the wife never categorically denied her presence in the photos, merely alleging they were "created by some trick" without proof.
Addressing the destruction of the mobile phone, the Court made a striking observation on human conduct during marital strife. The Bench remarked, "Breaking of mobile of appellant appears to be natural... No person will like his wife to be in continuation of adultery, therefore, husband... broke mobile phone of wife... in anger and to stop her communication with paramour."
Consequently, finding no merit in the technical objections, the appeal was dismissed.
Picture Source :
