Is a Section 65B Certificate Mandatory in Family Court? Karnataka High Court Says No

Case at a glance: A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act is not mandatory for admitting electronic evidence, such as video recordings on CDs, in family court proceedings. The Court relied on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which lets a family court receive any evidence that may assist in deciding the dispute, whether or not it is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act.

A husband appealed two family court orders: one granting his wife restitution of conjugal rights, and another dismissing his suit to declare the marriage a nullity. The marriage was solemnised on 22 November 2015. The wife relied on video recordings on CDs, photographs, wedding invitations and the testimony of the officiating priest.

The husband objected to the electronic evidence, including for want of a Section 65B certificate. The High Court heard the appeals.

The Key Question Before the Court

Is a Section 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate mandatory to admit electronic evidence, such as video on CDs, in family court proceedings?

Why Section 14 of the Family Courts Act Changes the Rule

As reported, the Court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows a family court to receive any document or evidence that may assist it in deciding the dispute, whether or not it would be relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act. On that basis, a Section 65B certificate is not mandatory in family court proceedings.

The Court also noted that the husband did not credibly challenge the authenticity of the recordings or seek forensic verification, and that the family court's findings rested on multiple corroborating materials beyond the videos.

What the Court Actually Held

• A Section 65B certificate is not mandatory for electronic evidence in family court proceedings.
• Section 14 of the Family Courts Act permits a family court to receive evidence that may assist it, whether or not admissible under the Evidence Act.
• The husband had not credibly challenged authenticity or sought forensic verification.
• The family court's findings rested on multiple corroborating materials, not on the videos alone.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It eases evidentiary technicalities in matrimonial disputes where parties often hold videos and messages without formal certificates.
• It still leaves room to challenge authenticity, so corroboration and forensic questions remain relevant.
• It highlights the difference between the strict rules in ordinary civil and criminal proceedings and the flexibility in family courts.
• It will be cited in matrimonial litigation across Karnataka and may be persuasive elsewhere.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Counsel in Family Court Proceedings

• Do not rely on the absence of a Section 65B certificate alone to keep out electronic evidence; challenge authenticity and seek forensic verification where it matters.
• Where possible, still produce supporting material and certificates to strengthen the weight of the evidence.

For Counsel in Other Forums

• Do not assume this applies outside family courts; the holding rests on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

According to this ruling, not as a mandatory condition, because Section 14 of the Family Courts Act lets a family court receive any evidence that may assist it.

Yes. Authenticity can be challenged and forensic verification sought; here the husband did not credibly do so.

The holding is specific to family court proceedings and rests on the Family Courts Act; it should not be assumed to extend elsewhere.

Conclusion