Family Courts Act, 1984
Section 14—Exercise of power—Wide powers inherent more responsibility—Certain safeguards required to be adopted by the Family Court while exercise its power are :
i. even though a given piece of evidence has been admitted on record, the Court must be extremely careful in relying upon such evidence while deciding lis. The authenticity & genuineness of such evidence must be strictly and meticulously examined.
ii. if in its opinion, the nature of the evidence sought to be adduced is inappropriate, embarrassing or otherwise sensitive in nature for any of the parties, may be litigating or not, the Family Court may restrict the parties who are present in court at the time of considering such evidence. It may conduct in-camera proceedings so as not to cause embarrassment to any person or party.
iii. all proceedings must be conducted strictly within the bounds of decency & propriety, and no opportunity should be given to any party to create a spectacle in the guise of producing evidence.
iv. any party aggrieved by the production of such evidence would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, whether in civil or criminal law, against party for procuring evidence illegally, although the initiation or pendency of such proceeding shall not make the evidence so produced inadmissible before the Family Court.
[Para 37]
Section 14—Order permitting husband to exhibit WhatsApp chats in divorce case alleging adultery—Challenged—Chats were obtained by husband by installing a special app on the wife’s phone without her consent—Legislature, being fully aware of the principals of admissibility of evidence, has enacted Section 14 of the Family Courts Act in order to expand that principle in so far as disputes relating to marriage and family affairs are concerned—Family Court is thereby freed of restrictions of the strict law of evidence—Only test under Section 14 of the Act for a Family Court to receive the evidence, whether collected legitimately or otherwise, is based upon its subjective satisfaction that evidence would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute—Order permitting exhibits of WhatsApp chats—Proper.
Held : A cumulative reading of Section 14 & 20 of the Family Courts Act, takes within its ambit the restricted applications of the provisions of the Evidence Act qua the documentary evidence which includes electronic evidence, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible. The only guiding factor is that the Family Court should be of the opinion that such evidence would assist the Court to deal with the matrimonial dispute effectively. It is the absolute power and authority of the Family Court either to accept or discard particular evidence in finally adjudicating the matrimonial dispute. However, to say that a party would be precluded from placing such documents on record and/or such documents can be refused to be exhibited unless they are proved as per Evidence Act, runs contrary to the object of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
In view of the discussion made above, this court is of the opinion that the Legislature, being fully aware of the principals of admissibility of evidence, has enacted Section 14 in order to expand that principle in so far as disputes relating to marriage and family affairs are concerned. The Family Court is thereby freed of restrictions of the strict law of evidence. The only test under Section 14 for a Family Court to receive the evidence, whether collected legitimately or otherwise, is based upon its subjective satisfaction that the evidence would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute.
Further, after having received such evidence on record, the Family Court is free to either accept or discard or give weightage or discard a particular piece of evidence while finally adjudicating the dispute. In other words, merely because evidence has been taken on record by virtue of Section 14, there is no compulsion on Family Court to rely upon such piece of evidence and it can discard such evidence if it is not found trustworthy while appreciating the evidence at the adjudication stage. It is also open to the opposite party to dispute, cross-examine and disprove the evidence so cited and to contest any claim being made on the basis of such evidence. The limited relaxation given by Section 14 is that even if under conventional rules of evidence, a report, statement, document, information or other matter is not admissible, the Family Court may yet receive such evidence on record if in its opinion, the evidence would assist it to deal effectively with the dispute. What value or weightage is to be given to such evidence is the discretion of the judge, when finally adjudicating the dispute.
In view of the discussion made, it is held that
(a) the evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected. The possible misuse of this rule of evidence, particularly in the context of the right to privacy, can be addressed by prudent exercise of judicial discretion by the Family Court, not at the time of receiving evidence but at the time of using evidence at the stage of adjudication;
(b) merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact. Admitting evidence is not even reliance by the court on such evidence. Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court;
(c) the test of ‘relevance’ ensures that the right of a party to bring evidence to court, and thereby to a fair trial, is not defeated. What weight is to be given to evidence so brought-in, and whether or not the court ultimately relies upon such evidence for proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact, is always in the discretion of the court.
(d) merely because a court allows evidence to be admitted, does not mean that the person who has illegally collected such evidence is absolved of liability that may arise, whether in civil or criminal law or both;
(e) such evidence must be received and treated with caution and circumspection and to rule-out the possibility of any kind of tampering, the standard of proof applied by a court for the authenticity and accuracy of a such evidence should be more stringent as compared to other evidence;
[Paras 12, 35, 36 & 38]