Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(g) It is further stated that after 3-4 days of the above mentioned incident, i.e., on 21.03.2021, wife i.e. the respondent sent a long Whatsapp message seeking apology and expressing remorse for her irrational and uncontrollable behaviour of the said night. Being unable to bear the said cruelty of the respondent, the appellant husband approached the Family Court for seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind / mental disorder.

(h) In response to the notice / summons issued by the Family Court, the respondent wife filed her written statement thereby specifically denying all the allegations made against her by the appellant husband. It is her contention that the husband is very dominating in character and always condemns her for every wrong and is never satisfied unless she apologies. It is further stated in the written statement, that the appellant husband used to have long conversations with his mother on phone and only after the call, he used to talk with the respondent wife. The respondent wife has made a counter allegation that it is the appellant husband who continuously threatened her of divorce.

33. He further submits that there was no cross-examination, except for an averment that the WhatsApp messages were written on the insistence of the appellant husband, as stated in the written statement. He further submits that, in fact, the respondent wife has admitted that she has sent the WhatsApp messages to the appellant on various dates. He submits that there are two litigations initiated by the wife: one is the private complaint bearing Defamation Case No. 1749 of 2023, and the other is a civil suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 118 of 2023, which is for monetary damages. He therefore submits that all these facts are sufficiently indicative to conclude that mental cruelty has indeed been practiced.

38. The most crucial aspect in the present appeal is the WhatsApp messages sent on 18.07.2020, 15.11.2020, 04.12.2020, and 21.03.2021. It is a matter on record that the respondent wife has admitted in her cross-examination that all these four messages were sent by her to the husband. It is also an admitted position on record that on all these four dates, both were residing separately. The only explanation provided by the respondent wife regarding the sending of the messages is that they were sent on the insistence of the husband. Thus, if the respondent wife chooses to aver and plead that the said WhatsApp messages were in fact sent on the insistence of her husband, in our view, the onus shifts on her to prove the same. The evidence and material on record do not show that the wife has discharged the said onus. Merely stating that the messages were sent on the insistence of the husband would not suffice in law, and the onus would remain undischarged. She has further gone to say that the said messages are edited and fabricated. However, applying the same principle, merely averring that the messages are edited and fabricated is not sufficient unless the specific edits or fabrication (if any) are pleaded and then proved.

41. The respondent's reliance on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Atul v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 ALLMR (Cri) 2396 to challenge the admissibility of the WhatsApp messages on the ground of absence of a Section 65B certificate is wholly misplaced and cannot be countenanced. Both the said decisions arose in the context of criminal proceedings and election matters, where the strict standards of the Indian Evidence Act apply in their entirety. The present proceedings are governed by the Family Courts Act, 1984, and specifically by Section 14 thereof, which explicitly empowers the Family Court to receive any report, statement, document, or information that may assist it in dealing effectually with the dispute, notwithstanding that the same may not be admissible under the said Act. More fundamentally, the question of formal admissibility of the WhatsApp messages is in any event rendered entirely academic in the present case, inasmuch as the respondent wife herself has admitted in cross-examination that all four messages dated 18.07.2020, 15.11.2020, 04.12.2020, and 21.03.2021 were sent by her. An admission by the party herself constitutes the best evidence in law, and no certificate under Section 65B is required to prove a document voluntarily admitted by the party against whom it is sought to be used.