Can Family Courts Consider Evidence Otherwise Barred Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? Kerala High Court Clarifies

KERALA: The Kerala High Court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows Family Courts to consider material that may otherwise be inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if it helps the Court decide a family dispute effectively.

The Court, however, clarified that such material must still be tested for its reliability and probative value, keeping in view fairness and principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar made the observation while considering cross-appeals arising from a matrimonial dispute involving gold ornaments, money, maintenance and ownership of jointly registered property.

The dispute arose from cross-appeals between a husband and wife involving gold ornaments, money, past maintenance and ownership of jointly registered property.

The wife claimed that she had 85 sovereigns of gold at marriage and later entrusted 80 sovereigns to her husband. She also claimed that her father gave money to the husband for renovation and funded the purchase of seven cents of land with a residential building, which was registered jointly in the couple's names.

The husband denied receiving the gold and money and claimed he purchased the property from his own funds. He also sought recovery of ₹3 lakh allegedly deposited in his wife's father's account.

The Family Court rejected the wife's claims for gold, money and past maintenance. The Court also dismissed the husband's counterclaim.

On the alleged 80 sovereigns of gold, the High Court agreed that the wife failed to prove entrustment. Her case was primarily based on her oral testimony, which the husband disputed.

The High Court observed:

“The only evidence adduced to prove the entrustment of the gold ornaments with the respondent is the oral testimony of the petitioner. That evidence stands stoutly controverted by the testimony of RW1, the respondent.”

The Court also found the wife's version improbable, noting circumstances concerning her possession of the ornaments before the couple travelled abroad.

The Court rejected her separate monetary claim for lack of reliable supporting material beyond oral evidence. Her claim for past maintenance also remained rejected, with the Court noting that she had not produced her bank account records despite admitting they could disclose her income.

The central legal issue, however, concerned the jointly registered property.

The husband argued that the sale deed recorded consideration of ₹7.58 lakh and that oral evidence suggesting a different amount could not be accepted under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act gives Family Courts wider evidentiary powers and can permit consideration of material otherwise inadmissible under Section 92 when required to effectively decide the dispute.

But the Court cautioned:

“We hasten to add that, while Section 14 of the Act gives discretion to the Family Court, in a given case, to admit evidence which may otherwise be inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, such discretion should be exercised with due care and caution, having regard to the laudable objects underlying Section 92”

It further emphasised:

“The reliability and probative value of such materials are also to be tested in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has held that the Family Courts are bound to adhere to the fundamental rules of evidence founded on logic, fairness and expediency, as well as the principles of natural justice, even when Section 14 of the Act permits them to receive evidence which may otherwise be irrelevant or inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.”

Thus, Section 14 relaxes the rules of admissibility but does not turn every allegation or document into proof.

On the property issue, the wife produced a bank statement showing that ₹25 lakh was credited to her father's account shortly before the transaction and debited on the date of the sale deed.

The husband could not establish his alleged financial contribution. He claimed that his money was held by his brother-in-law abroad but did not examine him or produce documents showing how those funds reached India.

The Court held:

“Coming to the disputed questions before us, we have no hesitation in holding that the oral evidence of PW1 and PW4, which is substantially corroborated by Ext.A3, is sufficient to establish that the actual consideration paid for purchasing the property was not the amount shown in Ext.B1 and that the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the petitioner.”

Considering Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court concluded that the wife's father had provided the entire consideration for her benefit.

It observed:

“In the present case, it is proved that the entire consideration was provided by the father of the petitioner in the best interests of his daughter and for her benefit and that it belongs to her.”

The wife had initially sought ₹15 lakh representing the value of the husband's alleged half share. Relying on the procedural flexibility available to Family Courts and Order VII Rule 7 CPC, the High Court moulded the relief.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the husband's appeal and partly allowed the wife's appeal, declared the wife the exclusive owner of the property, and directed the husband to vacate within three months.

At the same time, the rejection of the wife's claims for 80 sovereigns of gold, money and past maintenance remained undisturbed.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Section 14 Gives Family Courts Wider Evidentiary Power: Material otherwise inadmissible under Section 92 may still be considered if it helps decide the dispute.
• Wife’s 80-Sovereign Gold Claim Failed: She could not prove entrustment of the gold to the husband.
• ₹5.5 Lakh and Maintenance Claims Failed: Both remained unproved on the evidence placed before the Court.
• Joint Registration Did Not Protect Husband’s Share: He failed to prove that he contributed towards purchasing the property.
• For Husbands, Documents Matter More Than Assumptions: The wife was declared the exclusive owner and the husband was ordered to vacate within three months. If you paid, prove the money trail.