The appeal was filed by the wife<\/strong> against the decision of the Family Court, Balaghat, which had dissolved her marriage with the husband<\/strong> on 17.11.2021. She argued that the photographs used to prove adultery were secondary electronic evidence and should not have been considered without a mandatory 65B certificate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her lawyer relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal<\/em> (2020),<\/strong> which says Section 65B compliance is compulsory for electronic records. However, the High Court clarified that this ruling did not apply to matrimonial disputes<\/strong>, where the court has wider discretion under the Family Courts Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While discussing this, the High Court quoted Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “As per Section 14 of Family Courts Act, a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n “Since, Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases and further Court had been given authority to receive any report, statement, documents in evidence to find out the truth. Thus, this Court do not find any error in the judgment passed by Family Court by placing reliance on the said photographs.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court rejected the wife\u2019s argument that Section 14 cannot apply because the case was not a \u2018matrimonial dispute\u2019<\/em><\/strong>. The judges emphasised that Family Courts are meant to discover the truth with flexibility, not get trapped in technicalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife did not clearly deny that she was present in the photographs. Instead, she merely claimed that the pictures were \u201ccreated using some trick<\/em><\/strong>\u201d, without giving any explanation about who<\/em> created them or how<\/em> they were made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During her cross-examination, she admitted that the photographs were first in her mobile phone, and later transferred to her husband’s phone<\/strong>. She also admitted that the husband broke her mobile afterwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court found this behaviour natural and said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Breaking of mobile of appellant appears to be natural. Husband had evidence of wife’s adultery on her mobile phone. He transferred said pictures in his mobile phone. No person will like her wife to be in continuation of adultery, therefore, husband (respondent herein) broke mobile phone of wife (appellant herein) in anger and to stop her communication with paramour.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The photographer who developed the photographs was also examined, strengthening the husband\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After reviewing the complete evidence, the High Court observed that there was no merit<\/strong> in the wife’s appeal. Her vague denial, her own admissions, and the supporting testimony collectively proved adultery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Considering the evidence available on record and admission on part of respondent and also taken into consideration evidence of Shailendra Gurubele (AW-5) who had prepared the photographs, this Court do not find any merits in submissions made by counsel appearing for the appellant.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n “Consequently, this first appeal filed by wife is dismissed.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Wife\u2019s Defence Rejected \u2014 Her Statements Raised More Suspicion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
High Court Concludes: Divorce Rightly Granted<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Why This Judgment Matters<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Divorce](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Section 13 \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides grounds for divorce, including adultery<\/em>.<\/td> Husband filed for divorce under this section, alleging wife committed adultery.<\/td><\/tr> Section 65B \u2013 Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Mandatory certificate required for electronic evidence like photos, videos, mobile data. Ensures authenticity.<\/td> Wife argued photographs of adultery were inadmissible because husband did not file a 65B certificate. Court rejected this argument.<\/td><\/tr> Indian Evidence Act (General Applicability)<\/strong><\/td> Governs admissibility and proof of evidence in Indian courts.<\/td> Court said the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable<\/strong> in matrimonial cases before a Family Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 14 \u2013 Family Courts Act, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Allows Family Courts to accept any<\/em> evidence \u2014 report, document, statement \u2014 even if technically inadmissible under the Evidence Act.<\/td> High Court relied heavily on this, saying Family Court rightly accepted photographs without 65B certificate.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19 \u2013 Family Courts Act, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Deals with appeals from Family Court judgments.<\/td> Wife filed her appeal before the High Court under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Case Cited by Wife: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao<\/strong><\/td> Landmark Supreme Court case holding 65B certificate mandatory<\/strong> for electronic evidence.<\/td> High Court held this judgment does NOT apply<\/strong> to matrimonial disputes because Section 14 gives Family Courts wider discretion.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n