Family Court's Rejection of Electronic Evidence Without Section 65-B Certificate Questioned; Case Remanded for Fresh Adjudication
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, which directed Praveen Kumar Singh to pay a maintenance sum of Rs. 10,000 per month to his estranged wife. The decision, dated February 17, 2026, was delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh, who emphasized the Family Court's discretion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act to consider evidence not strictly adhering to the Indian Evidence Act's stipulations.
The case, titled Praveen Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., revolved around allegations of adultery against Singh's wife, purportedly supported by WhatsApp chat records. The Family Court initially dismissed these electronic communications due to the absence of a Section 65-B certificate, a requirement for electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Singh highlighted that the Family Court is empowered to accept any evidence that could potentially assist in resolving matrimonial disputes, even if such evidence does not meet the conventional admissibility criteria under the Indian Evidence Act. This flexibility is outlined in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The High Court found fault with the Family Court's failure to frame an issue regarding adultery, despite explicit allegations and supporting material presented by Singh. The lack of consideration of the WhatsApp chats and the absence of a specific adjudication on the adultery claim were deemed procedural oversights.
The court's judgment mandates a remittance of the matter to the Family Court for a fresh trial. This will involve a comprehensive review of all evidence, including electronic communications, to ensure a fair adjudication of the dispute. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of procedural diligence in family law cases, particularly concerning the admissibility and evaluation of electronic evidence.
The decision further underscores the judicial responsibility to adapt legal procedures to effectively adjudicate family disputes, reflecting a pragmatic approach in the context of evolving evidentiary standards.
Bottom Line:
Family Court can receive evidence, including electronic evidence, even if it does not comply with the Indian Evidence Act, provided it aids in effectively adjudicating matrimonial disputes.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984
- Section 354(6), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Praveen Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858642
