Introduction

The nature of matrimonial disputes in India has undergone a massive digital transformation. Where family courts once relied primarily on oral testimonies, handwritten letters, and physical diaries to ascertain marital misconduct, modern courtrooms are flooded with digital footprints. Litigants routinely present WhatsApp chat logs, audio notes, video clips, and social media screenshots to substantiate claims of cruelty, desertion, or adultery. 

However, this reliance on technology has given rise to a disturbing phenomenon: Digital Cruelty. With the explosion of consumer-grade generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), voice cloning tools, and deceptive chat-generation applications, the virtual landscape has been thoroughly weaponized. Disgruntled spouses can now fabricate entirely synthetic realities, using deepfakes and altered digital communications to assassinate characters, extort unfavorable settlements, or unfairly secure child custody.

Confronting this shift requires a precise understanding of how Indian family law defines digital cruelty, how courts scrutinize vulnerable evidence, and how the new statutory framework under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 operates to separate digital truth from AI-generated fiction.

Conceptualizing “Digital Cruelty” under Matrimonial Law

Under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (and corresponding provisions in various personal laws), “cruelty” encompasses both physical and mental injury. The Supreme Court of India has long maintained that mental cruelty cannot be bound by a rigid, static definition; it must be assessed based on changing social norms and the lived realities of the parties.

In the modern context, digital cruelty manifests as a distinct, highly destructive form of mental torment. It transcends physical boundaries, infiltrating a spouse’s professional and social life. The most prevalent forms include:

• Fabricated Infidelity:Using AI face-swapping or voice cloning technology to create convincing deepfakes that depict a spouse engaging in extramarital or inappropriate behavior.
• Contextual Mutilation:Systematically deleting portions of a WhatsApp conversation, or altering text logs through third-party apps, to make a normal disagreement appear as an abusive tirade or a threat.
• Digital Blackmail and Coercion:Threatening to release sensitive, doctored, or privately recorded intimate media on public platforms or to employers to force a quick, submissive divorce or maintenance settlement.
• Surveillance and Spoofing:Unauthorized hacking into a spouse’s personal cloud storage or communication apps to harvest data, alter messages, and create a false paper trail of mental instability.

The psychological impact of digital cruelty is profound. Victims are forced to defend themselves against allegations supported by visual or auditory “proof” that looks and sounds exactly like them, inducing severe anxiety, helplessness, and reputational damage.

The Technology of Deception: Deepfakes vs. Fragile Screenshots

To appreciate the challenge facing family courts, one must distinguish between the two primary vectors of digital manipulation:

1. Synthetic Media (Deepfakes)

Deepfakes utilize deep-learning algorithms—specifically Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)—to map the face or voice of a target individual onto a source video or audio recording. In matrimonial disputes, audio deepfakes are particularly insidious. An individual can clone their spouse’s voice using less than a minute of clean audio data harvested from routine phone calls. This cloned voice is then used to generate a script containing admissions of guilt, financial fraud, or explicit abuse. Because family courts are often overburdened, a casual listening of such audio can easily mislead a judge during preliminary stages.

2. Altered WhatsApp Evidence

WhatsApp remains the primary repository of marital communication, making it the most frequently submitted form of electronic evidence. However, raw screenshots are remarkably fragile. Dozens of online tools allow users to simulate a WhatsApp interface, input any name, choose profile pictures, and type out an entirely fictional conversation history. Furthermore, even genuine chats can be distorted through selective extraction—exporting only the reacting spouse’s angry outbursts while completely scrubbing the hours of gaslighting and provocation that precipitated the event.

The Legal Shield: The Transition to BSA, 2023

Indian evidence law has built stringent procedural walls to prevent the subversion of justice through tampered electronic records. Historically governed by the controversial Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the admissibility of electronic evidence is now regulated by Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. 

Under Section 63 of the BSA, electronic and digital records are treated with heightened scrutiny. When a party seeks to introduce secondary electronic evidence (such as printouts of WhatsApp chats, exported text files, or copied audio/video files on a flash drive), the evidence must be accompanied by a mandatory certificate. 

This certificate serves as a verification of integrity, confirming that:

1.The source device (e.g., the mobile phone) was under the lawful control of the person producing the record.

2.The device was functioning properly at the time the data was generated or stored.

3.The electronic record accurately reproduces the contents of the original device without any unauthorized intervention or alteration.

In an era dominated by deepfakes, courts are interpreting these certification parameters with extreme care. Standard, self-signed certificates are no longer treated as an absolute green light. If the opposing spouse raises a credible claim of digital manipulation or synthetic generation, the court will look past the certificate and order an independent digital forensic analysis.

Landmark Judicial Interventions

The Indian judiciary has actively evolved its jurisprudence to balance the search for truth with protection against digital fraud and privacy violations in matrimonial disputes. 

1.Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

Though decided under the old Evidence Act, this landmark Supreme Court ruling remains the bedrock of digital evidence admissibility. The Apex Court settled the law by declaring that the statutory certificate (now Section 63 of the BSA) is an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite for admitting secondary electronic evidence. The court recognized that electronic records are uniquely susceptible to tampering, and without strict compliance with the certification process, such evidence cannot be taken on record. This prevents parties from casually handing over unverified screenshots or printouts during divorce trials.

2.Vibhor Garg v. Neha (Supreme Court, 2025)

In this pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the intense friction between the right to privacy (Article 21) and the right to a fair trial. The case involved a husband who had secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife to establish grounds for divorce. The wife argued that the secretly recorded calls violated her fundamental right to privacy and spousal confidentiality.

The Supreme Court ruled that secretly recorded communications between spouses are admissible in divorce proceedings, holding that spousal privilege cannot be used as an absolute shield to suppress highly relevant evidence when the dispute is strictly between the spouses themselves. However, the Court introduced a vital caveat: the admitting court must be entirely satisfied regarding the genuineness and lack of tampering of the audio files, throwing open the doors for forensic validation when voice cloning or selective splicing is suspected.

3. Supriya Gaurav Devare v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil (Bombay High Court, 2026)

This case directly confronts the dangers of “digital cruelty” via selective text extraction. The Nashik Family Court had granted a divorce decree to a husband based entirely on WhatsApp chats wherein the wife used highly aggressive, derogatory remarks against her mother-in-law and insisted on a separate residence. The Family Court concluded this amounted to mental cruelty. 

On appeal, the Bombay High Court set aside the divorce decree. The Division Bench ruled that family courts cannot grant a divorce solely on the basis of unverified digital communications without giving the other spouse a full, meaningful opportunity to rebut the evidence and lead counter-evidence. The Court emphasized that mental cruelty cannot be established through selective messages taken completely out of context. This judgment acts as a vital safeguard against litigants who present carefully curated, altered fragments of conversations to build a false narrative of abuse.

Forensic Framework for Evaluating Digital Evidence

To successfully navigate the minefield of digital cruelty, courts and family law practitioners must move away from superficial visual assessments and rely on forensic verification metrics:

Conclusion

Digital cruelty represents a dark evolution in matrimonial conflict, where the target of abuse is forced to battle distorted versions of their own voice, face, and words. While technology has made it easier than ever to fabricate a false narrative, the evolution of Indian jurisprudence—from the strict mandates of Arjun Panditrao to the procedural fairness demanded by Supriya Gaurav Devare (2026)—shows that the judiciary is actively adapting.

The transition to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, underlines a critical reality: in modern family courts, a digital record is only as strong as its forensic integrity. By acting as rigorous gatekeepers, refusing to accept standalone screenshots, and leaning on digital forensics to unmask deepfakes, courts can ensure that the tools of modern convenience do not become instruments of absolute injustice.

References

1. Statutes:

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) (ia) (Grounds for Divorce: Cruelty).
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records).
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 63 (Admissibility of electronic and digital records)

2.Judicial Precedents:

• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
• Vibhor Garg v. Neha, Supreme Court of India (Judgment dated July 2025).
• Supriya Gaurav Devare v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil, Bombay High Court (Judgment dated March 2026).
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

Disclaimer: The articles published in this Insights section are intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. They do not constitute formal legal advice, and the reading or sharing of this content does not establish an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Altus Juris Law Offices. For specific legal challenges, readers must seek formal counsel.

Gautam Singh, Advocate | Co- Founding Partner, Altus Juris Law Offices