LUMESHWARI @ PINKY Vs. RAJESH DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this first appeal under Sec. 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 17/11/2021 passed in RCS-HM No.68/2020 (Rajesh Dubey Vs. Lumeshwari @ Pinki) by Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat (MP). By said judgment, Family Court allowed the petition filed by the husband (respondent herein) under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and suit was decreed and marriage between appellant and respondent dtd. 13/2/2006 was dissolved.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant attacks the impugned judgment and decree on grounds that Family Court had committed an error of law in relying the photographs which were secondary evidence and passing judgment and decree of divorce on ground of adultery and moreover, no certificate under Sec. 65-B of Evidence Act was filed. During course of arguments, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he is relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1. In said case, Apex Court has held that compliance of Sec. 65-B of Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory in nature. It is further argued that appellant has also stated in her depositions that said photographs were in her mobile and have been transferred in mobile phone of her husband (respondent herein) and later on, husband has broken the mobile phone of appellant. In view of same, there is infirmity in judgment and decree and same may be set- aside.

(3.) Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.