Chhattisgarh High Court: Section 65B Certificate Not Mandatory for CD in Family Court Divorce Case

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 138 | 2026:CGHC:3834-DB

January 22, 2026 : In a significant ruling on the admissibility of electronic evidence in matrimonial disputes, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside two conflicting orders passed by a Family Court in Mahasamund and directed a fresh hearing after considering a disputed compact disc as evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma was hearing two connected appeals filed by a husband, Tikeshwar Panda, against his wife, Sangeeta Panda. The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty, and a separate plea by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the same Act.

The couple was married in April 2012 and has two sons. After several years of marriage, differences surfaced. The husband alleged that his wife engaged in inappropriate video calls with other men during his absence and claimed to have installed CCTV cameras in the bedroom. He submitted a compact disc before the Family Court, asserting that it contained recordings of objectionable conduct.

However, the Family Court declined to examine the contents of the CD on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is generally mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records. Relying on that technical ground, the court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and allowed the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging both orders, the husband approached the High Court.

After examining the legal position, the High Court focused on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which permits Family Courts to receive any document, statement, report or information that may assist in effectively resolving a dispute, even if such material may not strictly meet the requirements of the Evidence Act. The Bench also referred to Section 20 of the same Act, which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Family Courts Act over other laws in case of inconsistency.

The court observed that the objective of the Family Courts Act is to simplify evidentiary rules in matrimonial matters and enable courts to deal with family disputes in a practical and sensitive manner, rather than being bound by rigid technicalities. While acknowledging that a compact disc qualifies as an electronic document under the Evidence Act, the Bench held that the absence of a Section 65B certificate should not have prevented the Family Court from considering it, particularly when it was central to the husband’s allegations.

The judges noted that the CD had already been placed on record and subjected to cross-examination. They concluded that it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute and should have been exhibited and examined.

As a result, the High Court set aside both the order rejecting the divorce petition and the decree granting restitution of conjugal rights. The matter has been remitted to the Family Court with directions to formally exhibit the compact disc, allow the opposite party to cross-examine or object to it in accordance with law, and then decide both suits afresh.

The Bench also directed the Family Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, noting that more than four years have already passed since the institution of the proceedings. The ruling clarifies that while electronic evidence typically requires compliance with Section 65B, Family Courts have broader discretion under the Family Courts Act when determining what material may assist in resolving matrimonial disputes.

Case Reference : FA(MAT) No. 432 of 2024, Tikeshwar Panda vs Sangeeta Panda, and FA(MAT) No. 17 of 2025, Tikeshwar Panda vs Sangeeta Panda; for the Appellant: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate; for the Respondent: Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate.