5 March 2026 Legal Updates

Divorce Cannot Be Granted Solely on WhatsApp Chats Without Proper Proof: Bombay High Court

a) Case Title:

• Supriya Gaurav Devare v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil

b) Court:

• Bombay High Court

c) Bench:

• Justice Bharati Dangre & Justice Manjusha Deshpande

d) Case Type:

• Family Court Appeal No. 70 of 2025

Facts of the Case

The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty by the wife.

The Family Court granted an ex-parte divorce decree in favour of the husband. The court relied mainly on:

• WhatsApp chats
• SMS exchanges between the spouses

The messages allegedly showed:

• The wife insisting that the husband shift from Nashik to Pune
• Derogatory language directed at the husband’s family.

The wife challenged this decision before the High Court.

Issue Before the High Court

Whether a divorce decree for cruelty can be granted solely on the basis of WhatsApp chats without proving them through proper evidence.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court found the Family Court’s reasoning legally unsustainable.

1️. Electronic Evidence Must Be Properly Proved:

The Court held:

• WhatsApp chats are electronic evidence.
• They must be proved according to law before they can be relied upon.

Merely producing chats is not sufficient.

2️. Opportunity to Rebut Evidence Is Necessary:

The Court emphasised the principle of natural justice.

The wife was not given an opportunity to:

• challenge the authenticity of chats
• cross-examine evidence
• rebut the husband’s allegations.

Such evidence cannot be relied upon unilaterally.

3️. WhatsApp Chats Cannot Be Sole Basis for Divorce:

The Court stated:

Merely relying on WhatsApp chats without proving them through evidence cannot form the sole basis for granting divorce.

Cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA must be proved through legally admissible evidence.

Decision of the Court

The High Court:

• Set aside the divorce decree passed by the Family Court.
• Remanded the case back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication.

Both parties will now be allowed to:

• present evidence
• contest electronic records.

Key Legal Principles

1️. Electronic Evidence Must Be Proved:

Under Indian Evidence Act 1872

Electronic records such as:

• WhatsApp chats
• Emails
• Digital messages

must be proved through proper certification and evidence.

2️. Natural Justice Principle:

Two fundamental rules:

• Audi Alteram Partem – hear the other side
• Evidence must be contestable.

Ex-parte reliance on chats violates this principle.

3️. Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act:

Under Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Cruelty must be:

• serious
• proved by evidence
• evaluated by court based on circumstances.

Casual disputes or isolated messages may not constitute cruelty.

4️. Ex-Parte Decrees Require Caution:

Courts must carefully evaluate evidence before granting ex-parte divorce.

Unverified digital evidence cannot be relied upon blindly.

Live-In Couples Entitled to Protection; Adults Free to Choose Their Partners: Delhi High Court

a) Case Title:

• Kartik & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

b) Court:

• Delhi High Court

c) Bench:

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Facts of the Case

A young couple approached the Delhi High Court seeking police protection from the woman’s father who allegedly threatened them because they were living together.

Key facts

• The couple were consenting adults (born in 2006 and 2007).
• They had been in a relationship since 2024.
• They were residing together in a live-in relationship.
• They executed a Live-in Relationship Agreement on 17 February 2026.
• The woman’s father opposed the relationship and allegedly threatened them.

The couple therefore filed a writ petition seeking protection of life and liberty.

Issue Before the Court

Whether consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection from family interference and threats.

Observations of the Court

1️. Right to Choose a Partner:

The Court reiterated that:

Adults have the constitutional right to choose their partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship.

This right flows from:

• Constitution of India Article 19
• Constitution of India Article 21

The Court observed that marriage in India is recognised when two consenting individuals choose each other, irrespective of caste, religion, or community.

2️. Live-In Relationship Comparable to Marriage (in Certain Contexts):

The Court stated that a live-in relationship is akin to marriage in nature, although it may not have the same legal status.

However, adults choosing such a relationship cannot be harassed or threatened.

3️. Family Members Cannot Interfere:

The Court clearly held:

Parents, relatives, or any other persons have no authority to interfere with the relationship of consenting adults.

Threats to life or liberty violate fundamental rights.

4️. Importance of Personal Autonomy:

The judgment emphasised that:

Personal choices regarding relationships form part of individual autonomy and dignity, protected under Article 21.

Court’s Directions

The Delhi High Court directed:

• The couple can approach the concerned SHO or Beat Constable for assistance.
• Police must provide necessary protection in accordance with law.
• If the couple shifts residence, they must inform the new SHO within three days, and protection will continue.

Key Legal Principles

1️. Right to Choose Partner:

Adults have the fundamental right to choose their partner, whether:

• marriage
• inter-caste marriage
• inter-religious marriage
• live-in relationship.

2️. Live-In Relationships Recognised in Law:

Indian courts have repeatedly recognised live-in relationships as legally permissible between consenting adults.

They are protected under constitutional rights to liberty and privacy.

3️. Protection of Life and Liberty:

Courts can grant police protection under Article 21 when:

• couples face threats from family or society.

4️. Parental Authority Not Absolute:

Parents cannot:

• threaten
• confine
• harass
  their adult children for relationship choices.