The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a maintenance order, observing that a Family Court possesses the discretion to receive any evidence that assists in effectively adjudicating a dispute, irrespective of its strict admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, while allowing a criminal revision, held that the trial court erred in summarily ignoring WhatsApp chats alleging adultery solely due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The primary legal question before the High Court was whether a Family Court is bound by the strict rigors of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Section 65-B regarding electronic records, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes. The revisionist challenged a maintenance order of ₹10,000 per month on the grounds that the trial court failed to consider evidence of adultery presented through WhatsApp conversations.
Arguments of the Parties
The revisionist contended that specific written submissions were filed before the trial court alleging that the opposite party was living in adultery. To support these claims, the revisionist submitted WhatsApp chats spanning over 50 pages of the paper book. It was specifically argued that these conversations were “indecent in nature and indicative of physical intimacy.”
The revisionist further argued that the trial court acted arbitrarily by failing to frame a specific issue regarding adultery, despite the presence of specific pleadings and supporting electronic material. The learned AGA for the State could not dispute the fact that these materials were on record but had been overlooked by the trial court.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court noted that the trial court’s rejection of the electronic evidence was based solely on the technical ground of a missing Section 65-B certificate. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1984, was designed to provide a more flexible approach to evidence in matrimonial matters.
The Court observed:
“Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
The Bench further clarified that the Family Court is empowered to “lay down its own procedure” to ensure the effective adjudication of disputes.
Regarding the mandatory requirement to frame issues, the Court observed that the revisionist had made specific character allegations in paragraph 11 of the written submissions. The High Court remarked:
“In view of the specific pleadings and supporting material filed by the revisionist, a specific issue ought to have been framed and adjudicated upon after considering the evidence on record.”
The Court also identified a procedural lapse under the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating:
“The trial court, while deciding the application… failed to consider the evidence filed by the revisionist and did not frame a specific issue regarding adultery, which was mandatory in view of Section 354(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Final Decision
The High Court concluded that the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, was “not sustainable in the eyes of law” because it ignored material evidence and failed to adjudicate on a core allegation.
The Court set aside the maintenance order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court has been directed to permit the parties to adduce evidence that may assist the court in light of the flexible standards provided under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
