S.65B Evidence Act Certificate Not Mandatory For Electronic Evidence Before Family Courts: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting electronic evidence such video recordings stored in CDs is not mandatory in proceedings before Family Courts. The Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act,...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting electronic evidence such video recordings stored in CDs is not mandatory in proceedings before Family Courts.
The Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 overrides the Evidence Act provisions regarding the relevance and admissibility of documents.
“It is clear from a reading of Section 14 that the Family Court may receive any document as evidence 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 Evidence Act,” the Court said.
It added, “The provisions of Section 14 are clear as daylight. They are intended to have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Evidence Act in respect of relevance or admissibility of documents. Such being the intention of the Parliament, it cannot be said that the rigours of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act will be applicable when a piece of electronic evidence is placed before the Family Court. In our view, the Family Court in the present case was justified in invoking Section 14 to repel the argument electronic evidence was inadmissible.”
The High Court was hearing two connected appeals filed by the husband challenging orders passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad.
In the first case, the family court had granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on a plea filed by the wife. In the second case, the family court had dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband seeking a declaration of nullity of the alleged marriage that was solemnized in November 22, 2015.
The appellant-husband argued that he was never married to the respondent and denied the genuineness of the photographs and the video contained in compact discs (CDs) produced by the wife. His primary contention was that the family court erred in relying on the video recordings stored in CDs, as no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was submitted.
The Bench observed that the Family Court had not decided the dispute solely based on the video recordings. Instead, it had taken into account the other evidence as well, which were submitted by the wife, such as photographs of the engagement and marriage ceremony, the wedding invitation card, deposition of the officiating priest, and the husband's original bank passbook and credit card charge slip.
“As we have already recorded, the Family Court did not decide the two cases based only on the video recordings contained in the CDs. A copy of the house rent agreement has been produced by the respondent to support her case that the appellant and herself lived as a couple in a rented house in Bengaluru. Certain original documents like the Bank pass book, invoice for purchase of clothes and credit card charge slip have been produced by the respondent. There is no explanation on behalf of the appellant how the original documents came into the hands of the respondent if they did not reside together,” the Court observed.
Noting that the appellant had failed to prove his claim that the video recordings and photos were fabricated, the Court said, “Although the appellant has seriously contended that the video recordings and photographs are fabricated, he has not placed any credible material in support of his contention. Except baldly denying the video recordings and his presence at the venue of engagement and marriage, the appellant has not taken any steps to have the authenticity verified. He did not make any application seeking a reference to the forensic science laboratory. All these circumstances indicate that the appellant failed to prove his case.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the family court order.
CASE: X v/s Y
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101273 OF 2021 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101274 OF 2021