The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a divorce granted based on mobile phone photographs allegedly showing the wife's adultery, holding that a Section 65B certificate was not mandatory in matrimonial cases.

The Bench noted that Family Courts are not bound by strict Evidence Act standards and may accept material that aids truth-finding.

The wife did not deny being in the photos and claimed they were fabricated, but gave no proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a Family Court’s divorce decree granted to a husband based on photographs showing the wife committing adultery, even though no Section 65B Certificate under the Indian Evidence Act was filed.

The Court observed that the Indian Evidence Act provisions are not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases, and Family Courts may receive any report, statement, or document to ascertain the truth under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

The wife’s appeal challenging reliance on the photographs was dismissed, as she failed to rebut their authenticity.

Finding her objections unsubstantiated, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the divorce decree.

[L v. RD]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted a divorce to a husband, affirming that photographs from his mobile phone showing his wife's adultery constitute valid evidence.

The court held that such electronic evidence does not require a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act when it is not directly challenged or disputed by the opposing party.

The bench found the photographic proof sufficient to establish a ground for divorce based on cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court clarified that the strict technical requirement for a Section 65B certificate is not absolute in all circumstances, particularly when the authenticity of the evidence goes uncontested.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrict a person’s right to travel abroad, nor can it impose conditions for such travel. 

Justice Pranay Verma quashed the Tribunal’s direction requiring the petitioner, ex-Director of Metalman Industries, to deposit ₹50 crore as a precondition for foreign travel, observing that such conditions effectively deprive a person of their fundamental right.

The Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is protected under Articles 19 and 21, and any restriction must be backed by enacted law, which is absent under the 1993 Act. 

The imposed conditions were found arbitrary and unsustainable.

[Rajiv Soni v. ICICI Bank]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that victims of caste-based atrocities cannot claim compensation under the SC/ST Act if they turn hostile during trial or amicably settle with the accused.

The bench emphasized that the 1989 Act aims to deter atrocities by ensuring offenders are prosecuted, and victims are supported throughout the legal process. 

The court further noted that the compensation scheme presupposes the victim's cooperation in prosecuting the offense, not their subsequent reconciliation with the perpetrator.

The court noted that in the present case, the prosecution against the accused has ended in their acquittal on account of the petitioner not supporting the prosecution's case.

[Victim X v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a man who posted on WhatsApp that beef consumption is essential to being Hindu, finding the statement potentially inflammatory and capable of disturbing communal harmony.

The court observed that the matter involved allegations of circulating material hurting religious sentiments or promoting disharmony.

It noted that whether the accused acted with deliberate malice or in good faith could not be determined at this preliminary stage, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

Concluding that no case was made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the plea.

[Buddha Prakash Bouddha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to entertain the appeal of distributor Rajpal Kataria after authorities sealed his shop and suspended his licence following the deaths of children who consumed Coldrif cough syrup. 

The Court said the case involved one of the most shocking medical incidents, with over thirty deaths reported.

The Court held that Kataria has an effective remedy under Rule 66 of the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, and observed that he may approach the State Government in appeal, noting that Article 226 offers discretionary relief.

[Rajpal Kataria v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association submitted a representation to the Chief Justice on November 26, raising concerns about recent changes to case-listing practices, judicial rosters, and related procedural policies at the High Court.

The Association highlighted issues such as the removal of slip-drop boxes, non-relisting of adjourned matters, and the backlog of bail cases, which have created “uncertainty in day-to-day functioning” for lawyers and litigants.

The representation, signed collectively by members, urges the Court to address these issues before the Association’s December 1 general meeting.

It also notes that the Association may refrain from court work as a form of collective action if concerns remain unaddressed.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that refusal to consent to divorce after the complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The parties, married in 2002, had been living separately for several years. The wife alleged dowry harassment and physical assault, which the husband denied while continuing to oppose the dissolution.

The Court found the marital relationship beyond restoration and observed that compelling parties to remain in such a dead marriage causes avoidable hardship and constitutes mental cruelty.

Concluding that reconciliation was impossible and cohabitation unworkable, the Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, identified in 2019 but advertised in 2023, must be treated as backlog vacancies. 

Justice Ashish Shroti clarified that the recruitment year is the year of identification, not advertisement. 

The Court ruled that carried-forward disability vacancies form a distinct category and cannot be merged with fresh vacancies. It further noted that, under Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act, unfilled posts can be interchanged across disability categories.

Rejecting the State’s argument that delayed advertisement negated backlog status, the Court directed consideration of the petitioner against the 2019 MD backlog vacancy.

[Vaishali Chaturvedi V State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce, holding that the husband failed to prove desertion or cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. 

The Court reiterated that desertion requires animus deserendi, a clear and settled intention to permanently terminate the marital relationship, which was not demonstrated.

The Court observed that the husband produced no independent, corroborative, or documentary evidence to show cruelty, refusal to cohabit, or any conduct amounting to matrimonial misconduct.

Finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and unsupported by material on record, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the continuance of the marriage.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought responses from the state government on a Public Interest Litigation seeking the removal of liquor shops located within 500 meters of national and state highways.

The petition stated that the presence of these shops in proximity to the highway poses a grave risk to public life and safety, as they encourage the consumption of alcohol by commuters and heavy vehicle drivers while in transit.

The petition cites Supreme Court directives aimed at reducing drunk driving accidents and demands strict enforcement of distance norms for alcohol vends near roadways. The case is now listed for December 02.

[Rashid Noor Khan v Union of India]

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to members of the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association by permitting district judges to continue in service until the age of 61.

The Bench heard a challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s administrative decision refusing enhancement of the retirement age from 60 to 61, despite earlier Supreme Court directions issued on May 26.

The Court observed that other State employees retired at 62 and found no reason to deny district judges retirement at 61. It ordered that the association’s members be permitted to continue in service accordingly, while the writ petition remained ongoing.

[Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.]

A Hindu woman’s family approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court with a habeas corpus petition, alleging she was being wrongfully detained after moving in with a Muslim man.

The Court observed that the woman is a major, left her parental home of her own free will, and is not under wrongful restraint.

[Sandeep Choudhary v Superintendent of Police & Ors.]