MP High Court Says Section 65B Certificate Not Mandatory in Matrimonial Cases, Upholds Divorce Based on Photos

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Section 65B certificate in matrimonial cases—normally required for admitting electronic evidence—is not mandatory. A Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and B.P. Sharma at the Jabalpur Bench upheld a divorce decree granted by a Family Court after relying on photographs retrieved from the wife’s mobile phone that depicted her in a relationship with another man.

The Court affirmed the divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of adultery. It held that Family Courts, by virtue of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, possess broad discretion to admit material that may assist in resolving a dispute, even if such evidence would typically be inadmissible without a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

“The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not mandatory in proceedings before the Family Court,” the Bench noted, emphasising that the statutory scheme grants these courts flexibility to adopt procedures that best achieve justice between parties. The wife’s objection—that the photographs lacked a Section 65B certificate—was rejected because she did not dispute their authenticity and offered no explanation suggesting manipulation.

Photos Retrieved From Mobile Phone Considered Sufficient Evidence of Adultery

The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband, who submitted photographs extracted from the wife’s mobile device. These images, he argued, clearly showed her engaging in an extramarital relationship. The Family Court accepted the photographs and granted a decree of divorce on grounds of adultery.

Before the High Court, the wife argued that electronic evidence could not be admitted without a Section 65B certificate, which is ordinarily required to authenticate electronic records. She claimed that the absence of such certification rendered the photographs legally inadmissible.

The Bench disagreed. It observed that the wife had neither denied the presence of the photographs on her phone nor provided any plausible claim that the images were fabricated. The Court held that the Family Court was justified in relying on the photographs, especially because the wife failed to contradict or explain the evidence presented against her.

The ruling makes clear that when authenticity is not in dispute, insisting on a Section 65B certificate may be unnecessary in matrimonial contexts where courts prioritise substantive justice over rigid evidentiary rules.

Section 14 of Family Courts Act as the Primary Legal Basis

A central feature of the High Court’s reasoning was its interpretation of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which allows Family Courts to receive any document, report or statement that may assist in resolving disputes effectively.

Under Section 14, Family Courts are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The Act permits flexible procedures so long as they support the goal of delivering fair and efficient justice in matters relating to marriage and family.

The Court highlighted that, unlike civil or criminal trials governed strictly by the Evidence Act, matrimonial disputes are adjudicated in a more informal, conciliatory setting. This context allows Family Courts to consider material that may otherwise be excluded.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the Family Court acted within its statutory discretion in admitting the photographs without a Section 65B certificate. The High Court noted that the underlying purpose of Section 14 is to remove procedural barriers that could hinder the resolution of sensitive family disputes.

Why Section 65B Certificate Is Usually Required—and Why It Was Not Here

Ordinarily, the Indian Evidence Act requires that electronic records be accompanied by a Section 65B certificate to prove their authenticity. This certificate confirms the manner in which the electronic record was produced and ensures that the evidence has not been tampered with.

However, the High Court emphasised that strict evidentiary rules must yield to the special procedural framework of Family Courts. The Bench observed:

• Family Courts are statutorily exempt from rigid application of Evidence Act provisions.

• The wife did not dispute the genuineness of the photographs.

• The material played a central role in resolving the marital dispute.

• Mere absence of a Section 65B certificate cannot override Family Court discretion when authenticity is uncontested.

In the Court’s view, the certificate’s purpose—to guard against manipulation—was fulfilled because the wife failed to claim fabrication or raise doubt about the images. Without such objections, insisting on the procedural formality of a Section 65B certificate would not serve the ends of justice.

Court Notes Wife’s Failure to Rebut or Explain Photographic Evidence

A key factor in upholding the divorce decree was the wife’s inability to offer a credible explanation for the photographs. The Bench noted that she did not contest the presence of the images on her phone nor offer any version suggesting they were edited, misinterpreted or taken out of context.

This absence of rebuttal strengthened the Family Court’s finding that the photographs were genuine and indicative of adultery. The High Court held that the Family Court had applied the correct standard of proof for matrimonial cases and appropriately relied on the images as substantive evidence.

The Bench underscored that when parties do not dispute electronic evidence, procedural objections such as the absence of a Section 65B certificate lose significance in the family law context.

High Court Affirms Broad Evidentiary Flexibility in Matrimonial Disputes

The judgment reinforces the principle that Family Courts are designed to operate differently from conventional courts in terms of evidentiary requirements. Section 14 explicitly confers flexibility so that judges may admit material that helps resolve disputes effectively, especially in matters involving personal relationships and sensitive marital issues.

The Bench emphasised that the Family Courts Act anticipates situations where rigid technical rules—such as those involving the Section 65B certificate—may create barriers to justice.

As long as the evidence is relevant, reliable, and uncontested, Family Courts may admit it. This approach reflects the Act’s focus on substantive justice rather than procedural rigidity.

Divorce on Ground of Adultery Upheld as Decree Contained No Legal Error

Based on the photographs and other materials before it, the Family Court had concluded that the wife was involved in an adulterous relationship. The High Court observed that this finding was supported by the evidence and that the decree of divorce contained no legal error.

In dismissing the wife’s appeal, the Bench reaffirmed that appellate courts should not interfere with factual determinations by Family Courts unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Family Court had duly evaluated the photographs and related testimony, and its conclusion was both lawful and reasonable.

The absence of a Section 65B certificate therefore did not undermine the validity of the divorce decree.

Implications for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Family Law Proceedings

While the Court did not lay down a general rule overriding the need for a Section 65B certificate in all contexts, it clarified that in Family Courts, procedural flexibility is the norm. The emphasis is on whether the evidence assists in resolving the dispute—particularly when authenticity is not challenged.

The decision affirms that:

• Family Courts may admit electronic evidence without a certificate if the circumstances justify doing so.

• Authenticity, relevance and reliability take precedence over formal procedural requirements.

• Section 14 serves as a broad enabling provision to facilitate justice in matrimonial matters.

The ruling continues a line of judicial reasoning that recognises the special nature of family law proceedings and the need for less rigid evidentiary barriers.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment provides clarity on the application of a Section 65B certificate in matrimonial disputes. By upholding a divorce decree based on photographs retrieved from a mobile phone and confirming that the certificate was not mandatory under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the Court reaffirmed the flexible evidentiary framework governing family law proceedings.

The decision underscores that in sensitive marital disputes, Family Courts may prioritise substance over form, particularly when authenticity of electronic evidence is not denied. The ruling reinforces the principle that the pursuit of truth and effective dispute resolution remains central to the functioning of Family Courts.