Karnataka HC Orders FSL Test Of Videos Father Says Show Wife, Reopens His Evidence After Her No-Objection In Custody Case

The father sought custody of the parties’ child in G&WC No. 58/2023 and alleged that the mother appeared in videos depicting illegal activity.

He applied under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the electronic material for forensic examination and under Section 151 CPC to reopen his evidence.

The mother denied appearing in the videos but did not object to forensic examination; the father also stated that a private laboratory had identified her, although its report had not been placed before the Family Court.

The Family Court dismissed both applications, reasoning that the persons in the videos did not appear to be the mother and that expert examination was unnecessary.

The father challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for expert opinion on matters requiring specialised knowledge, including scientific examination.

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It stated that where identity in electronic material is disputed and scientific examination is available, the court should not substitute its own visual comparison for expert analysis; the examination was appropriate in light of the child’s welfare and the mother’s reputation.

The Family Court had relied on its own visual assessment to conclude that the mother was not depicted in the videos, while the father asserted that a private laboratory had reached the opposite conclusion.

Given the mother’s lack of objection to forensic examination and the competing interests in the child’s welfare and the mother’s reputation, the High Court considered scientific analysis preferable to judicial comparison of the images.

It therefore held that expert examination was appropriate and that the father’s evidence should be reopened to facilitate it.

It allowed I.A. Nos. 6 and 7, reopened the father’s evidence, and directed that the electronic material be referred to the FSL.

It also directed the Registry to return the reports submitted in sealed covers and closed the pending interlocutory applications.