Background of the Case

The Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife (opposite party no. 2) from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the High Court seeking to set aside the maintenance order on legal and factual grounds.

Grounds Raised by the Revisionist

The principal contention of the revisionist was that his wife was allegedly living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. He submitted that specific pleadings were made before the trial court alleging an illicit relationship and that WhatsApp chats (pages 141 to 197 of the paper book) were annexed as supporting evidence. According to the revisionist, the chats contained indecent conversations indicative of physical intimacy.

However, the trial court declined to consider these WhatsApp chats on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was filed to authenticate the electronic evidence. The revisionist argued that this resulted in an arbitrary decision.

Failure to Frame Specific Issue

The revisionist further contended that despite making clear allegations of adultery supported by documents, the trial court failed to frame any specific issue on the question of adultery. It was argued that this omission amounted to a serious procedural lapse, as the issue directly affected the entitlement of maintenance.

The learned AGA opposed the revision but did not substantially dispute the factual aspects presented by the revisionist.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court examined the record and noted that the WhatsApp chats were rejected solely due to the absence of a Section 65-B certificate. The Court referred to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which empowers Family Courts to receive and consider any evidence that may assist in effectively resolving disputes, even if such material may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court emphasized that Family Courts have procedural flexibility in matrimonial matters. It observed that paragraph 11 of the written submissions contained specific allegations regarding the wife’s alleged illicit relationship and that supporting chats were annexed. Despite this, the trial court neither considered the material nor framed a specific issue on adultery.

The High Court further noted that in view of Section 354(6) Cr.P.C., proper adjudication required framing and deciding material issues raised by the parties .

Final Decision

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 was not sustainable in law and set it aside. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration after giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. The trial court was directed to reconsider the matter in light of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.