Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Divorce Decree on Grounds of Adultery Amid Electronic Evidence Dispute

Family Court's Admission of Photographic Evidence Without Section 65-B Compliance Validated in Matrimonial Case

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted by the Family Court of Balaghat in favor of Rajesh Dubey against Lumeshwari @ Pinky. The judgment, delivered by the division bench comprising Justices Vishal Dhagat and B.P. Sharma, was pronounced on November 11, 2025, in response to First Appeal No. 866 of 2021.

The central issue in the appeal was the admissibility of photographic evidence purportedly showing the appellant, Lumeshwari, in compromising situations, which the Family Court admitted as evidence of adultery. The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the photographs constituted secondary electronic evidence and were admitted without the mandatory certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Counsel for the appellant invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, which emphasized the necessity of compliance with Section 65-B for electronic records. However, the High Court found the argument inapplicable in this matrimonial dispute context, where Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows a more flexible approach to evidence admissibility.

The court noted that under Section 14, Family Courts have the discretion to accept any evidence they deem helpful in resolving disputes, irrespective of its admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment highlighted that Lumeshwari admitted to being present in the photographs but claimed they were manipulated, a claim she failed to substantiate. The court also considered the testimony of the photographer who corroborated the authenticity of the photographs.

The bench concluded that there was no legal error in the Family Court's reliance on the photographs to decree divorce on the grounds of adultery. It dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court's judgment and reinforcing the distinctive evidentiary standards applicable in matrimonial disputes.

The case underscores the nuanced application of evidentiary rules in family law, particularly the interplay between statutory provisions governing electronic evidence and the broader discretion afforded to Family Courts in India.

Bottom Line:

Evidence Act - Section 65-B compliance is mandatory in nature for electronic records. However, in matrimonial disputes under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Court has the authority to receive any evidence, whether or not strictly admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to assist in resolving the dispute effectively.

Statutory provision(s): Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 14, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65-B

Lumeshwari @ Pinky v. Rajesh Dubey, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819307