Family Courts may relax Section 65B certification requirements when permitting electronic evidence.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the applications to reopen the petitioner’s case and recall PW1 to mark documents.

The court held

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 5 January 2023.

It also directed

It allowed I.A. Nos. XI to XIII, subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from marrying another woman until he married her according to the asserted custom and usage.

¶ 3–4, 15–16

The respondent denied their relationship and contended that the suit was not maintainable without a declaration of status.

¶ 3–4, 15–16

After both parties had led evidence and the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner sought to reopen her case, recall PW1 to mark documents, and produce electronic evidence, including a pen drive and WhatsApp messages.

¶ 5–7, 17–18

The Trial Court dismissed the applications, principally because the petitioner had not produced a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

¶ 9, 19

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the applications to reopen the petitioner’s case and recall PW1 to mark documents.

¶ 5–6, 17–19

ii.2. Whether the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, by itself, justified refusing permission to produce the proposed electronic evidence in the Family Court proceedings.

¶ 12, 19–24

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, including the certificate requirement under subsection (4), and held that the requirement was procedural and could be relaxed in Family Court proceedings.

¶ 20

It relied on Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, which recognizes that evidence from new recording techniques should not be excluded if its accuracy can be proved, while requiring caution in its assessment.

¶ 21

It also relied on Smt. K.C. Saritha v. A.N. Vijay Kumar, drawing on Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, concerning the assessment of electronic evidence and relaxation of the procedural requirement in Section 65-B(4).

¶ 22–23

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s applications were made after the evidence had concluded, but she asserted that some documents had not been marked due to oversight and sought to introduce electronic material relevant to the dispute.

¶ 17–18

The Court found that the Trial Court had rejected the applications solely for want of a Section 65-B certificate, without considering the cited authorities on the treatment of electronic evidence and the possibility of relaxing that procedural requirement.

¶ 19, 24

It therefore held that the impugned order warranted interference.

¶ 25

05Holding

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 5 January 2023.

¶ 26(i)–(ii)

It allowed I.A. Nos. XI to XIII, subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.

¶ 26(iii)

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF