Allowing WhatsApp chats as evidence of wife’s adultery, Allahabad High Court sets aside order to pay Rs 10,000 maintenance

Justice Madan Pal Singh stated that the trial court’s order is not sustainable.

What was the case?

• The criminal revision plea was filed by the husband with a prayer to set aside a family court’s order passed under Section 125 (maintenance of wife) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) whereby the man was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to his wife.
• His counsel submitted that he had filed written submissions before the trial court alleging that his wife was living in adultery with another man.
• It was argued that the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.
• Section 65B of the Act pertains to the requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

• It was contended that despite annexing several WhatsApp chats, the trial court failed to consider the same and passed the impugned order arbitrarily.
• It was further submitted that no specific issue regarding adultery was framed by the trial court, despite specific allegations having been made in the reply along with the WhatsApp chats.
• The additional government advocate opposed the prayer made by counsel for the revisionist.

Court’s observations

• It appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act had not been submitted, the court observed.
• However, 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.
• Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the family court may lay down its own procedure.
• A perusal of paragraph 11 of the written submissions filed by the revisionist (husband) before the trial court reveals specific allegations against the wife that she has an illicit relationship.
• The WhatsApp chats were also annexed in support.

• However, the trial court neither considered the same nor framed any specific issue on the point of adultery.
• In view of the specific pleadings and supporting material filed by the husband, a specific issue ought to have been framed and adjudicated upon after considering the evidence on record.
• The trial court, while deciding the application under Section 12 (plea to magistrate) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, failed to consider the evidence filed by the man and did not frame a specific issue regarding adultery, which was mandatory in view of Section 354(6) of the CrPC.

Court’s directions

• The trial court’s order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is accordingly set aside.
• The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing counsel for the parties and permitting the parties to cite such evidence as may assist the court in effectively adjudicating the dispute in light of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.