Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence

14 March 2026 11:08 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Untested WhatsApp Messages Cannot Be Sole Basis to Prove Cruelty”, In an important ruling on the evidentiary value of electronic communication in matrimonial disputes, the Bombay High Court held that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats and SMS messages without proper proof and without giving the opposite party an opportunity to rebut the evidence.

Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree granted by the Family Court, Nashik on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication after granting the wife an opportunity to contest the allegations and lead evidence.

The appeal was filed by the wife challenging an ex-parte judgment dated 27 May 2025 passed by the Family Court, Nashik in Petition No. A-185 of 2024, whereby the husband had been granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

The Family Court relied primarily on WhatsApp chats and SMS exchanges between the parties, treating them as evidence of mental cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife.

According to the Family Court’s observations, the chats showed that the wife had insisted that the husband shift from Nashik to Pune, and certain messages allegedly contained derogatory remarks against the husband’s sister and mother. On this basis, the Family Court concluded that such conduct amounted to mental cruelty and granted divorce.

However, the decree was passed ex-parte, without the participation of the wife in the proceedings.

The central question before the High Court was whether an ex-parte decree of divorce could be sustained when the finding of cruelty was based mainly on WhatsApp chats and SMS messages that were neither properly proved nor tested through cross-examination.

The appellant-wife argued that she was not given an opportunity to contest the allegations or rebut the electronic evidence relied upon by the husband, which violated the principles of natural justice.

WhatsApp Chats as Evidence

After examining the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court noted that the divorce decree was primarily based on the “unchallenged testimony” of the husband supported by WhatsApp chats and SMS messages.

However, the Court emphasized that electronic evidence must be properly proved and subjected to scrutiny during trial before it can form the basis of a finding of cruelty.

The Bench observed: “Merely relying on the WhatsApp Chat, the divorce decree cannot be granted, since it is not proved by leading evidence.”

The Court held that without giving the wife an opportunity to explain or rebut the electronic material, reliance on such chats to dissolve a marriage was legally unsustainable.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The High Court also stressed that the principles of natural justice require that both parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case and challenge the evidence relied upon by the other side.

Since the divorce decree was passed ex-parte without allowing the wife to contest the allegations, the Court held that the impugned judgment could not be sustained.

The Bench therefore concluded that the matter required fresh adjudication after recording evidence from both sides.

Matter Remanded to the Family Court

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the High Court remanded the matter to the Family Court, Nashik, directing it to determine all issues afresh after granting the wife an opportunity to contest the divorce petition and lead evidence.

The Court also granted the parties liberty to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation during the course of the remanded proceedings.

The judgment underscores that electronic communications like WhatsApp chats cannot automatically establish matrimonial cruelty unless they are properly proved in accordance with law and tested during trial.

By setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that procedural fairness and the opportunity to rebut evidence are fundamental to matrimonial adjudication.

Date of Decision: 27 February 2026

Latest Legal News