Case at a Glance
A husband obtained divorce for cruelty from the Family Court, Lakhisarai, after the wife's evidence was closed and she led none. On appeal, the Patna High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found the husband's account vague, scattered over about a decade and uncorroborated. It held his WhatsApp and call records inadmissible without a Section 65B(4) certificate. It set aside the decree, dismissed the divorce petition, and left custody and maintenance disputes to the competent court.
Background
The parties married on 12 February 2010 at Muzaffarpur. The husband was a State Bank of India officer posted in Daman and Diu and living in Vapi, Gujarat. Two daughters were born, in 2010 and 2014. The husband said the parties had not cohabited since November 2018. On 23 October 2021 he filed Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce and custody of the daughters.
A temporary understanding reached in counselling led to cohabitation from 4 June 2022, but it failed. The wife filed her written statement on 5 September 2022, denying cruelty. Her evidence was later closed and she led none. The Family Court granted divorce for cruelty and directed the husband to maintain the wife and children. The wife appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The Question Before the Court
Did the husband prove cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) on the evidence before the Family Court?
The Burden Stays on the Petitioner
As a first appellate court, the High Court re-examined the evidence. It found the husband's oral evidence, given by himself, his sister and a friend, vague and spread over roughly eleven or twelve years. The incidents of 2012 and 2015 were isolated, and the long cohabitation and the birth of two children diluted the claim of continuous cruelty. Applying Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, it held that the WhatsApp messages and call records (Exhibit-1) were inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.
The Court noted that although the wife led no evidence, the husband's burden was not discharged merely because her account went unrebutted. Drawing on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, it held that mental cruelty requires grave and persistent conduct; sporadic friction is not enough, and a failed reconciliation does not by itself prove cruelty. It found no procedural irregularity and held that the Lakhisarai court had territorial jurisdiction.
What the Court Held
- The husband's evidence was vague, undated and uncorroborated, and did not prove cruelty.
- WhatsApp and call records were inadmissible without a Section 65B(4) certificate.
- The Family Court decree was set aside and the divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) dismissed.
- Both parents must continue their obligations to the children; custody, visitation and maintenance disputes may go to the competent court.
Why It Matters
- A spouse who leads no evidence can still win if the petitioner fails to prove the case.
- Electronic evidence needs a Section 65B(4) certificate to be relied on.
- Long cohabitation and children can weaken a claim of continuous cruelty.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Keep dated records of incidents; vague accounts over many years are hard to prove.
- Screenshots and call logs need proper certification to be used in court.
For counsel
- File a Section 65B(4) certificate with any electronic record.
- On appeal, press the petitioner's burden even if your client led no evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The divorce decree was reversed.
- Uncorroborated, undated allegations failed the cruelty test.
- Uncertified electronic records were excluded.
- Child-related issues were left to the competent court.
FAQs
Can a divorce be reversed if the wife did not give evidence at trial?
Yes. The High Court held the husband still had to prove cruelty, and he had not.
Are WhatsApp messages admissible in divorce cases?
Only with the required Section 65B(4) certificate, which was missing here.
What happens to the children?
The parents must continue their obligations; any custody, visitation or maintenance dispute can be taken to the competent court.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court held that a decree of divorce must rest on proof, not on a long but vague list of grievances. The marriage continues in law.
Practical takeaway: in a cruelty case, specific, dated and properly proved incidents matter more than the number of allegations.