Section 65 B Evidence Act Not Mandatory In Matrimonial Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Divorce Based On Photos Of Wife's Adultery

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while upholding a divorce granted to a man based on mobile photos showing adultery on part of wife has ruled that a certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act is not mandatory in nature.

The Court was considering an Appeal against a Divorce Decree issued by the Family Court allowing the Petition filed by the Husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

The division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Bhagwati Prasad Sharma held, "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. 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...."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Eshaan Datt.

Facts of the Case

The Counsel for the Appellant opposed the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds that the Family Court had committed an error of law in relying the photographs which were secondary evidence and passing judgment and decree of divorce on ground of adultery and moreover, no certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act was filed.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he is relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 wherein it was held that compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory in nature.

It was further argued that the Wife also stated in her depositions that the said photographs were in her mobile and have been transferred in mobile phone of her husband and later on, husband broke her mobile phone of appellant.

Reasoning By Court

The Court clarified that the cited case will not be applicable as the said case is not related with matrimonial dispute and Section 14 of the Family Courts Act is not in question.

"On going through evidence of Lumeshwari @ Pinki (NAW-1), it appears that she has not denied that she was not there on photographs. It has only been stated that said photographs have been created by using some trick; who has created these false photographs and by what method, has not been stated, only a general statement has been made to avoid confrontation with said photographs. Appellant had stated in her deposition that photographs were transferred from her mobile to mobile of husband, then husband has broken her mobile. 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. Photographer who developed photographs was also examined in Court", the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Lumeshwari@ Pinky v. Rajesh Dubey (2025:MPHC-JBP:56736)

Click here to read/ download Order