Delhi High Court Frames Criminal Contempt Charges Against Advocate For Scandalizing Judge On LinkedIn After Cyber Cell Traces IP Logs Testimony Of Partially Hostile Witnesses Can Be Relied Upon If Corroborated: Delhi High Court Upholds Police Officer's Conviction Subordinate Engineers Entitled To Non-Functional Upgradation Even If Level 8 Reached Via MACP: Supreme Court FEMA Adjudicating Authority Cannot Overrule Competent Authority's Refusal To Confirm Asset Seizure: Supreme Court Candidate Cannot Claim Lower Preference Post After Securing First Choice Under Merit-Cum-Preference System: Madhya Pradesh High Court Official Cannot Escape Corruption Trial Merely Because 90% Payment Was Made Prior To His Joining: Calcutta High Court Employee Who Evades Cross-Examining Witnesses Cannot Later Claim 'No Evidence' In Departmental Enquiry: Andhra Pradesh High Court Fictitious Or Non-Genuine Revenue Entries Cannot Confer Adhivasi Rights Under UP Zamindari Abolition Act: Allahabad High Court Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination Of Compassionate Appointee Over Age Dispute, Says Such Claims Cannot Be Kept Pending Indefinitely Alleged Custodial Torture Does Not Automatically Attract Contempt Under 'D.K. Basu' Unless Specific Arrest Guidelines Are Violated: Gujarat High Court Authority Cannot Act As 'Judge In Own Cause'; Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Distillery License Cancellation Over Procedural Impropriety Financial Corporations Have Absolute Power To Fix Employee Pay, Prior State Govt Approval Not Required: Jharkhand High Court Custodial Interrogation Not Required For Police Inspector Accused Only Of Illegal Confinement Prior To Victim's Death: Karnataka High Court Rescission Of Contract Without Hearing Is Illegal; Courts Cannot Interfere In Second Appeal If Findings Rest On Unrebutted Evidence: Gauhati High Court RTI Penalty Proceedings Are Between Commission and SPIO Alone — Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard: Kerala High Court Catastrophic To Allow Law To Take Its Own Course: MP High Court Quashes POCSO, BNS FIR After Victim And Accused Marry No Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act Without Proof Of Demand And Acceptance: Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against Sub-Inspector Attack On Judicial Officers Is Criminal Contempt; Supreme Court Orders CBI/NIA Probe Into West Bengal Incident Prolonged Physical Relationship By Educated Woman Amounts To 'Promiscuity', Not Rape Induced By Misconception Of Fact: Punjab & Haryana High Court Father Cannot Escape Duty To Maintain Minor Children Merely Because Mother Earns Substantial Income: Uttarakhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled To Maintenance; Mere Earning Capacity Not A Bar: Orissa High Court Limitation Period Starts From Date Of Knowledge Of Document, Not From When Certified Copy Is Obtained: Madras High Court Mere Mass Transfer Of Officers By Election Commission Does Not Paralyse State Machinery: Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Right To Appeal Under Senior Citizens Act Belongs Exclusively To Parents, Children Cannot File Appeal: Orissa High Court Acquittal Cannot Survive When Overt Acts Are Clearly Proved: Madras High Court Convicts Two Accused in Village Clash Killing

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