Jabalpur decides in the matter of Lumeshwari @ Pinky in its landmark judgement, removed the applicability of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in matrimonial proceedings, and set a precedent in adultery cases. It is now it is not mandatory to admit electronic evidence, particularly photographs, in divorce cases involving allegations of adultery under section 65 B.
The technical obstacle should not stop to give divorce on adultery. The source is not necessary other than photographs and evidence leading to the circumstances may be sufficient to confer adultery charges against spouses. The Electronic Act should not be followed strictly, as in criminal cases and in matrimonial cases, the court has excluded the complete provisions of the act.
In the contemporary matter, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao case ask to remove the strict compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Procedural hurdle created by the Electronic Rules was removed, and it created great relief for the parties to prove adultery charges in the Indian family court. In such cases, the source of mobile phones, computers and laptops is with the other spouse, and it is difficult to comply with the mandatory provisions. It leads to injustice, and now EE cannot be used as strictly as in civil and criminal cases for matrimonial cases.
The Aadhar card, voter id and other government documents show some other person as a spouse it is deemed as adulterous living, unless the concerned person objects or changes the name and continues to allow the other person’s name as their spouse. It is the duty of the other side to prove their innocence, and they cannot claim the protection of the mandatory provisions of Electronic Evidence for proving adultery.
Advocate K.P.Satish Kumar M.L
High Court Madras
Top Divorce Lawyer in India
