Family Courts can admit evidence, including electronic documents, without strict adherence to Evidence Act requirements when necessary for effective adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The appellant herein/husband has preferred an application for divorce on the ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage being the subject matter of Civil Suit No.22A/2021, whereas the respondent herein/wife has preferred an application for restitution of conjugal rights being Civil Suit No.9A/2020. Both the applications have been heard analogously by the Family Court and separate judgments have been passed. The Family Court has dismissed the application for divorce filed by the appellant/husband resulting into filing of FA (MAT) No.432/2024 questioning the rejection of his application seeking dissolution of marriage, whereas the application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent/wife has been granted against which the appellant/husband has preferred FA (MAT) No.17/2025 questioning the same that the respondent/wife is not entitled for decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

2. Since in both the cases, husband is the appellant and wife is the respondent, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The aforesaid judgments & decrees have been challenged by the appellant herein/husband on the following factual backdrop:-

3.1) Marriage between appellant Tikeshwar Panda and respondent Sangeeta was solemnized on 26-4-2012 at Village Mohanmuda Pandripani, District Mahasamund as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons namely Aadarsh Panda, aged about 12 years and Aarush Panda, aged about 8 years. Aadarsh Panda is residing with appellant Tikeshwar Panda – husband and Master Aarush Panda is residing with respondent Smt. Sangeeta Panda – wife. After seven years of marriage, matrimonial discard took place between the parties.

3.2) It is the case of the appellant herein/husband in the divorce petition that when he used to go to his work, thereupon taking advantage of his absence, the respondent herein/wife befriended many male friends and used to do obscene chatting and video calls with them. Thereafter, when the appellant/husband got a hint about the same, he tried to convince the respondent/wife to improve, but she did not listen leading to installation of two CCTV cameras in the bedroom and he himself saw that the respondent/wife used to make video call with her male friends and exposes her body/private parts to them.

3.3) It is the further case of the appellant herein/husband in the divorce petition that when the respondent herein/wife was exposed by him before her parental family members, she threatened to commit suicide and wrote a suicide note mentioning the name of the appellant, which was informed by the appellant to Police Station Sariya. Thereafter, on 7-12-2020, firstly, the respondent/wife filed application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Saraipali on the ground that the appellant/husband has deserted her and refused to keep her without any reasonable cause. Thereafter, on 19-7-2021, the appellant/husband filed application for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty contained in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Link Court Saraipali, District Mahasamund on the ground that the respondent/wife, after marriage, treated him with cruelty by entering into extra marital affairs and adulterous acts.

3.4) It is also the case of the appellant herein/husband in the divorce petition that he has filed a Compact D