No Section 65B Certificate, Yet Divorce Upheld:
Madhya Pradesh High Court on Adultery, Electronic Evidence, and the Role of Family Courts

Introduction

The increasing use of digital devices in everyday life has transformed the nature of evidence presented before courts. Photographs, messages, call records, and electronic data now frequently form the backbone of disputes, particularly in matrimonial litigation.

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a decree of divorce granted on the ground of adultery, even though the photographs relied upon were not supported by a Section 65B certificate. The decision revisits the relationship between the Evidence Act, the Family Courts Act, and the realities of matrimonial adjudication.

The judgment underscores a crucial principle: family law proceedings are not meant to be decided solely on technicalities, but on a holistic assessment of conduct, probabilities, and truth.

Factual Background of the Case

The marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably. The husband approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, alleging that the wife was involved in an extramarital relationship.

To substantiate his claim, the husband relied upon photographs stored on a mobile phone, depicting the wife with another man in compromising circumstances. The Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, granted a decree of divorce.

Aggrieved by this decision, the wife preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, raising a primarily evidentiary challenge.

The Wife’s Argument: Strict Application of Section 65B

The wife relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, contending that electronic evidence produced without a Section 65B certificate is inadmissible.

• The photographs constituted electronic records.
• No Section 65B certificate accompanied them.
• The Family Court erred in relying on inadmissible material.
• The divorce decree was therefore legally unsustainable.

The Central Legal Question

Whether strict compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory in matrimonial proceedings before Family Courts, and whether absence of such certificate automatically renders electronic evidence inadmissible.

Family Courts Act: A Distinct Evidentiary Regime

The High Court placed reliance on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which empowers Family Courts to receive evidence that may not be strictly admissible under the Evidence Act, provided it assists the court in effectively adjudicating the dispute.

This provision reflects legislative intent that family disputes, deeply personal in nature, should not be defeated by rigid procedural rules.

Why Matrimonial Proceedings Are Different

• Matrimonial disputes are decided on preponderance of probabilities.
• Courts examine conduct, surrounding circumstances, and human behaviour.
• The objective is to determine whether the marital bond has irretrievably broken down.

Applying criminal trial standards to family disputes would defeat the very purpose of family law adjudication.

Conduct of the Wife: A Crucial Factor

The Court noted that the wife did not deny her presence in the photographs. Her defence was limited to a vague allegation of manipulation, without explaining how, by whom, or for what purpose the photographs were altered.

She further admitted that the photographs were originally stored on her own mobile phone. Such admissions carried substantial evidentiary weight in matrimonial proceedings.

Breaking of the Mobile Phone: Context Matters

The argument that the husband broke the mobile phone to destroy evidence was rejected. The Court observed that human conduct in cases of marital discord must be assessed realistically.

Preventing further communication in the context of alleged infidelity could not, by itself, justify drawing an adverse inference.

Distinguishing Arjun Panditrao

The High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao was delivered in the context of strict evidentiary rules applicable to regular civil and criminal courts.

• Section 14 of the Family Courts Act was not overridden.
• The Family Courts Act is a special statute.
• Criminal trial standards cannot be mechanically imported into matrimonial disputes.

Adultery: Proof and Probability

Adultery is rarely proved by direct evidence. Courts have consistently held that it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including conduct, association, and opportunity.

In the present case, photographs, admissions, and surrounding circumstances cumulatively established a strong probability of an extramarital relationship.

Broader Legal Significance

• Reaffirms wide evidentiary discretion of Family Courts.
• Cautions against reliance on technical objections alone.
• Encourages holistic evaluation of digital evidence.
• Clarifies context-sensitive application of Section 65B.