By IndiaHub 
To give you in quick overview of this case’s background, the couple got married on February 13, 2006 and on November 17, 2021, the husband filed for divorce in the Family Court. He won the case based on the photos and the photographer’s testimony.
The wife’s lawyer challenged the family court’s divorce ruling, claiming that the Family Court made a legal error by relying on these photographs which were considered secondary evidence and that it shouldn’t have granted a divorce based on grounds of adultery without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act .
Additionally, the wife’s lawyer argued that the wife had also deposed that the photographs were in her mobile and have been transferred to her husband’s mobile phone. Later, the husband allegedly broke the wife’s mobile phone.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court analysed the facts and said that the husband had evidence of her adultery on her own mobile and thus he transferred the said pictures in her mobile phone to his own mobile phone. The high court opined that no person would like his wife to be in continuation of adultery, therefore, he broke the mobile phone of wife in anger and to stop her communication with the paramour.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also said that Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases and further the family court had been given authority to receive any report, statement, documents in evidence to find out the truth.Also read: No maintenance for wife who had a 10-year long live-in relationship with a married man; Allahabad High Court rules
Why did the husband win this case?
Shivam Kunal, Advocate, Delhi High Court, said to ET Wealth Online that the husband won the case because the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Family Court’s divorce decree based on photographs showing the wife’s adultery, even without a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act.
Kunal says: “The Court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows Family Courts to admit any material that helps resolve the dispute, even if it would not be strictly admissible under the Evidence Act. Since matrimonial cases are governed by this relaxed standard, the requirement of a Section 65-B certificate is not mandatory.”
According to Kunal, the wife admitted the photos were originally on her mobile and were transferred to the husband’s phone but only made a general claim that they were “created by trick” without explaining how.
Kunal says: “The Court found this defense unconvincing and accepted the photos as genuine proof of adultery. As the Family Court had rightly relied on this evidence to grant divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the husband’s decree.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court analyses the facts
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said in its judgement (FA-866-2021) dated November 11, 2025 that the wife’s lawyer relied on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that compliance of Section 65-B of Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory in nature.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the case cited by counsel appearing for the appellant (wife) before the court is not applicable as the Supreme Court case was not related to matrimonial dispute and Section 14 of Family Courts Act was not in question.
According to the Section 14 of Family Courts Act, a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Madhya Pradesh High Court said: “Since, Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases and further Court had been given authority to receive any report, statement, documents in evidence to find out the truth. Thus, this court do(es) not find any error in the judgment passed by Family Court by placing reliance on the said photographs.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that on going through the evidence of the wife, it appears that she has not denied that she was there in the photographs.
Madhya Pradesh High Court said: “It has only been stated that said photographs have been created by using some trick; who has created these false photographs and by what method, has not been stated, only a general statement has been made to avoid confrontation with said photographs.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the wife had stated in her deposition that photographs were transferred from her mobile to the mobile of husband, and then the husband had broken her mobile.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that breaking of the mobile of appellant (wife) appears to be natural
Madhya Pradesh High Court said: “The husband had evidence of wife’s adultery on her mobile phone. He transferred said pictures in his mobile phone. No person will like her wife to be in continuation of adultery, therefore, husband (respondent herein) broke the mobile phone of wife (appellant herein) in anger and to stop her communication with the paramour. The photographer who developed the photographs was also examined in Court.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said:
- Considering the evidence available on record and admission on part of respondent and also taken into consideration evidence of photographer (AW-5) who had prepared the photographs, this Court do not find any merits in submissions made by counsel appearing for the appellant.
- Consequently, this first appeal filed by the wife is dismissed.
Naman Singh Bagga, Partner, C&S Partners, said to ET Wealth Online that the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that while the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governs admissibility of evidence, matrimonial proceedings before Family Courts operate on a distinct statutory footing and the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in such proceedings.
According to Bagga, the husband succeeded for two reasons: first, the Court found his evidence credible and admissible despite not meeting the technical requirements of the Evidence Act; second, the wife failed to convincingly deny the photographs and offered vague explanations deemed unreliable.
Bagga says: “High Court further held that although Section 65-B mandates a certificate for electronic evidence, the Court held that such rigidity cannot apply mechanically in family disputes initiated under the Family Courts Act.”