Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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