Latest Judgement

1. INTRODUCTION
   In family law disputes—especially those involving divorce, custody, or domestic violence—the truth often rests on oral testimony. Unlike other branches of law, family law cases rarely present clear documentary evidence. Instead, judges must evaluate the credibility of parties through what they say and how they say it. In doing so, family courts must be careful not to rely on stereotypes, generalisations, or assumptions about how people “should” behave.
   The Indian Supreme Court has recently reminded lower courts of this principle, highlighting the importance of evaluating oral evidence in the context of normal human conduct without falling into the trap of stereotypical thinking.¹ This article discusses this judicial approach and argues that recognising individual and cultural diversity in human behaviour is essential for fair adjudication in family law matters.
2. UNDERSTANDING ORAL EVIDENCE IN FAMILY LAW
   1. NATURE OF FAMILY DISPUTES
      Family law disputes often involve emotionally charged relationships, where the parties are close, but the conflict is intense. Events occur in private settings—bedrooms, kitchens, and family gatherings—where no independent witnesses are present. As a result, oral evidence becomes a central component of proof.
      In custody cases, for example, the court must assess a parent’s fitness largely based on oral statements, past conduct, and subjective observations. In domestic violence or cruelty cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the victim’s testimony may be the only available evidence.
   2. CHALLENGES IN ASSESSING ORAL EVIDENCE
      Evaluating oral testimony is inherently subjective. Judges must determine credibility, consistency, and plausibility. However, problems arise when judges rely on stereotypes about how a “normal” person would behave in a particular situation.
      For instance, assuming that a woman who faces abuse would always file a complaint immediately, or that a man who cries during testimony is less believable, reflects bias rather than objectivity. This can lead to miscarriages of justice, particularly in cases involving psychological abuse or emotional manipulation.
3. JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF STEREOTYPING IN ORAL EVIDENCE
   The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly warned against relying on preconceived notions when evaluating testimony. In a recent case, the Court observed:
   “The conduct of the parties cannot be expected to be in any particular manner or to follow a standard pattern. Human behaviour is complex and influenced by many factors, including fear, trauma, and cultural context. Courts must not generalise behaviour based on outdated stereotypes.”
   This aligns with earlier decisions such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, where the Court held that delayed reporting in sexual violence cases should not be seen as a ground to disbelieve the victim.
   1. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
      1. Avoiding Gender Stereotypes: Courts must avoid drawing conclusions based on gendered assumptions—e.g., that women are naturally more emotional, or that men are less likely to be victims.
      2. Understanding Cultural Context: Behaviour that seems “abnormal” in one cultural or social context may be perfectly rational in another.
      3. Recognising Psychological Trauma: Victims of domestic or sexual abuse may respond in ways that appear counterintuitive—such as staying with the abuser or showing affection—due to psychological coercion or economic dependency.
4. APPLICATION IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS
   1. CUSTODY DISPUTES
      In custody battles, one parent may accuse the other of being unfit or abusive. If the accused parent does not display visible signs of aggression or if the child shows attachment to both parents, courts must avoid assuming that the allegations are false. Trauma bonding and manipulation are well-documented phenomena that can explain such behaviour.
   2. DIVORCE ON GROUNDS OF CRUELTY
      Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is often established through oral evidence. A spouse may not always react to cruelty in a way that society expects—such as leaving the marital home or confronting the partner. Courts must consider these dynamics before disbelieving testimony.
5. NEED FOR SENSITISATION AND JUDICIAL TRAINING
   To eliminate stereotyping, there is a pressing need for judicial training and sensitisation. Judges in family courts must be trained in psychology, sociology, and trauma-informed approaches. Standardised assumptions—such as how a victim “should behave”—must be replaced with empathy and individualised assessments.
   Additionally, the judiciary must take guidance from international standards, such as the UN Handbook on Effective Prosecution Responses to Violence Against Women and Girls, which discourages reliance on gender-based stereotypes in judicial reasoning.
6. CONCLUSION
   Family courts play a critical role in resolving deeply personal conflicts. Given the high dependence on oral testimony, judges must assess evidence in light of normal human behaviour, not idealised or stereotypical behaviour. The legal system must recognise that human reactions to trauma, stress, or abuse are diverse. What matters is not how a person “should” behave, but whether their testimony is internally consistent, plausible, and credible in its specific context.
   Only by discarding generalisations can family courts deliver justice that is not just lawful but also humane and realistic.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, practising divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. This article is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer/advocate specialising in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.