The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a family court’s decision allowing a husband to use his wife’s mobile call recordings and WhatsApp messages as evidence in a divorce case. The court stated that the right to privacy is not absolute.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a family court’s decision that permitted a husband to present his wife’s mobile call recordings and WhatsApp messages as evidence in an ongoing divorce case.
The court stated that the fundamental right to privacy is not absolute.
Justice Sachin Singh Rajput rejected the wife’s challenge to the family court’s order, which allowed the husband to submit electronic evidence in a divorce proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
He noted,
“The litigating party certainly has a right to privacy but that right must yield to the right of an opposing party to bring evidence it considers relevant to court, to prove its case. It is a settled concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before a Court of law.”
The court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a personal right, the right to a fair trial has broader implications that affect public justice, which serves a larger purpose.
In this case, the husband sought a divorce from his wife and subsequently filed a request to include recordings of their conversations and WhatsApp chats involving the wife, her family, and others.
The wife opposed this, arguing that the husband had a suspicious mindset and that the recordings were obtained illegally through hacking.
The family court initially ruled in favor of the husband on December 12, 2024, allowing his request on the grounds that the evidence could aid in deciding the divorce application.
The wife then appealed to the high court, arguing that the family court had failed to recognize that the evidence was not legally admissible.
On the other hand, the husband’s counsel contended that the family court’s permission had already allowed the evidence to be presented without objection from the wife regarding its admissibility, thus negating her current arguments about errors in the court’s judgment.
The court concluded that, although privacy is recognized as a fundamental right, it is subject to exceptions and limitations. Denying the opportunity for a fair trial by excluding relevant evidence would adversely affect public justice.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court: Taunting Husband for Joblessness is Cruelty, Grants Divorce
According to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, evidence is admissible regardless of its status under the Evidence Act.
If evidence were to be excluded due to privacy objections, it would undermine Section 14 and render it ineffective.
Family courts are designed to handle sensitive issues surrounding marriage dissolution, child legitimacy, guardianship, and custody, which naturally involve private matters.
Thus, if Section 14 were restricted concerning privacy, it would diminish the purpose of family courts. Ultimately, the admissibility of evidence will depend solely on its relevance.
Case Title: Smt. Manjari Tiwari Dubey vs Vaibhav Dubey
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce