ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA Nos.4 and 5 in MC No.65/2021, dated 1.7.2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, the respondent is before this Court.

2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife.

3. The husband has filed MC No.65/2021 seeking divorce on the ground of nullity due to non consummation of the marriage, whereas the wife has filed a counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. While the application for maintenance filed by the wife was taken up for hearing, at that time these applications are filed under Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of the CPC. Initially, xerox copies of the documents are submitted with the petition. Subsequently, authenticated data, images, messages, audio and video from the wife’s phone number were obtained from the forensic expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and that they are crucial documents that are admissible under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. The wife had filed objections and it is stated that the applications to introduce allegedly irrelevant and manipulated documents at this stage are not maintainable as the case has not yet proceeded to the evidence stage. The claims of the petitioner/husband in the affidavit are false and that it is up to the Court and not to the petitioner/husband to determine the admissibility and relevance of the evidence. The forensic expert cited by the petitioner/husband is not credible and the documents were created post the petition to damage the petition of the wife. Hence, she requested the Court to reject the applications for lack of grounds. The Court had allowed the said applications stating that the party submitting evidence must typically provide a certification under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act attesting to the authenticity of the electronic record. When a document is marked through an expert, such a forensic analysts can be brought in to authenticate and analyze electronic evidence. An expert’s testimony can help to establish the reliability and authenticity of the evidence. The forensic experts often provide detailed reports and may be called to testify about their findings, methods and the integrity of the electronic evidence. The Trial Court also observed that the admissibility and marking of evidence was governed by specific rules and Courts often prefer evidence to be accompanied by expert analysis to ensure its authenticity and reliability. After production of the documents the respondent/wife will get an opportunity to deny the document through cross-examination of PW.1 and accordingly, dismissed the objection of the wife. Being aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the Trial Court ought not to have admitted such applications. He had relied on Section 45 and 45A of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:

“45. Opinions of experts.

When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts.”

“45A. Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.

When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in Section 79- A of the Information Technology Act 2000(21 of 2000) is a relevant fact.

Explanation - For the purposes of this Section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert.

5. He has also relied on Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. By relying on the said provision, the learned counsel submits that the Central Government may, for the purposes of providing expert opinion on el