Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1338
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Manish Minda, S/o Satyanarayana Minda - Petitioner
Versus
Alka Minda, D/o Nanda Kishore Mittal - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.3956 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi
For the Respondent: Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy
Family Courts possess broad discretion to admit any evidence relevant to matrimonial disputes, overriding strict evidence rules, allowing for the inclusion of previously excluded electronic communications.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act - Section 14 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 122 - Admissibility of electronic evidence in family law proceedings - The court emphasized that Family Courts have wide discretion to accept evidence even if it's otherwise inadmissible under the Evidence Act. The petitioner sought to admit WhatsApp chats and audio transcripts, which were initially dismissed by the trial court for lack of foundation. The High Court determined that the Family Court failed to consider relevant documents, including WhatsApp chats, warranting the admission of these as evidence. (Paras 18, 20, 29)
(B) Evidence - Secondary Evidence - The Family Court must maintain discretion under Section 14, allowing the admission of secondary evidence when justifiable grounds are shown. The court reiterated that unless a coherent foundation is provided, secondary evidence involving letters could be inadmissible. (Paras 15, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (husband) filed for divorce, sought to provide WhatsApp chats and letters as evidence after trial commenced; initial application for evidence was dismissed by the Family Court for lack of reference in pleadings.
Findings of Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal concerning the admissibility of WhatsApp chats and transcripts while rejecting other letters due to absence of foundational support for secondary evidence.
Issues: Whether the additional documents, primarily WhatsApp chats, could be admitted as evidence during divorce proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled Family Courts have the discretion to admit documents essential for adjudicating marital disputes and that failure to consider admissible evidence constitutes a misstep.
Result: Revision allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's application for admissibility of evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's analysis and considerations. (Para 6 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. principles of evidence in family courts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 20) |
| 5. discretionary powers of family courts in evidence admission. (Para 14 , 17 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court's decision on evidence admission. (Para 24 , 25 , 28 , 30) |
| 7. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 31 , 32) |
ORDER :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 20.11.2024, passed by the I Additional Family Court, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.211 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.635 of 2021.
2. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed FCOP vide FCOP.No.635 of 2021 seeking divorce against the respondent. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter denying the plaint averments. The trial commenced, PW1 filed chief-affidavit and also additional chief-affidavit and the matter was coming up for marking of documents and at that stage, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC and Section 14 of FAMILY COURTS ACT , to receive the documents i.e., CD, WhatsApp chats and oral conversation transcript in English language as electronic evidence and also other documents i.e., letters along with certified translations and original postal receipts as secondary evidence.
5. The respondent filed counter opposing the said application contending that the documents now sought to be received are created only to cover up the laches that occurred during the filing of the O.P. and to improvise his case and as such, the application is not maintainable and prayed the Court to dismiss the application.
6. The trial Court duly taking into consideration the contentions of the both the parties dismissed the application by impugned order, by observing that in the entire plaint averments, there is no reference about the letters dated 11.08.2020 and 18.09.2020 and no foundation was laid regarding the same and as such, declined to receive the said documents as secondary evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that WhatsApp chats and the English transcript of oral conversations were retrieved from the respondent’s mobile phone backup, which was accessed when the respondent had left the phone unattended at one point of time and the same are crucial in proving his case. He further submitted that the trial Court while not receiving the copies of letters, has erroneously discarded the electronic evidence i.e., Whatsapp chats and oral conversations transcript in English as well and hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.
8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Aman Lohia vs. Kiran Lohia, (2021) 5 SCC 489
(ii) Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur vs. Princess Manolya Jah and another , [ 2018 (4) ALD 204 (DB)]
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the documents sought to be received were not annexed to the O.P and at least, there is no whisper about the said documents in the O.P., as contemplated under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC read with 151 CPC is not maintainable and as such, trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. He further submitted that no valid grounds are made out in the Revision and the Revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Siddiqui (died) by LRS vs. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240
(ii) U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas , (2013) 2 SCC 114
11. This Court has bestowed its attention to the submissions advanced by
