Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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