Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1125 (MP)

Archana Gaidam v. Swapnik Gaidam

2017-11-02

NANDITA DUBEY

body2017
ORDER 1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.9.2017, passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 65B of the Evidence Act has been rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, an application under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner tendered her appearance and filed her reply. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 65 of the Evidence Act, whereby some photographs, which she allegedly had obtained from the computer of respondent, showing him in relation with another girl and copy of audio and video recording, uploaded in the pendrive along with a self verified certificate that she has obtained the photographs from the laptop of her husband and the recording from her husband's mobile. 3. The respondent has objected the same by filing a reply. 4. The trial Court after considering the documents, the photographs and the pendrive, dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has not followed the procedure prescribed under section 65B of the Evidence Act for admissibility of the electronic record. 5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of the trial Court is not in consonance with law and as per sub-section (4) of section 65B of the Evidence Act, any person could have filed the certificate. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is observed that for the admissibility of the electronic evidence, the procedure has been prescribed under section 65B(2) and (4) of the 1872 Act. The petitioner has only filed the photographs and the mobile recording in a pendrive, which is not supported by any certificate of the service provider or any officer of the telephone department or by any forensic expert showing that in the audio recording, the voice belonged to the petitioner and the respondent. She has also not filed any details as to when she has uploaded the photographs from the laptop of her husband or of which make the laptop was and any certificate of the expert in this regard. 7. She has also not filed any details as to when she has uploaded the photographs from the laptop of her husband or of which make the laptop was and any certificate of the expert in this regard. 7. Since the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements of section 65B of the Evidence Act, the application for taking on record the photographs and pendrive as evidence was rightly rejected. No interference is warranted in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Puspendra Yadav for petitioner.