The Supreme Court explains whether secret recordings in a bedroom can be used as evidence in divorce cases, marking a major shift in matrimonial dispute proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible in court.
The ruling came in the case of Vibhor Garg vs. Neha, where the Court clarified that such recordings, although made without consent, can be considered valid evidence if they help establish facts in cases like divorce or cruelty.
This decision sets a crucial precedent, balancing the right to privacy with the need for fair adjudication in matrimonial matters.
Background
The case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between Vibhor Garg and Neha, who were married in 2009 and had a daughter in 2011.
Due to ongoing marital discord, Vibhor Garg filed for divorce in 2017 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the proceedings in the Family Court, Bathinda, he submitted a CD containing secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife, claiming they proved cruelty.
The wife objected, arguing that the recordings were made without her consent and violated her right to privacy under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act.
While the Family Court allowed the evidence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed this decision, siding with the wife. Vibhor Garg challenged this before the Supreme Court, leading to the landmark judgment on the admissibility of secret recordings in matrimonial cases.
ALSO READ: Matrimonial Disputes | “Lawyers Should Not Fuel Allegations”: Delhi High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Ruling
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its 2021 decision, ruled in favour of the wife, holding that the secret recordings submitted by the husband were inadmissible as evidence.
The Court reasoned that recording a spouse’s private conversations without their knowledge or consent amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It further held that such recordings breached the spousal communication privilege under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits disclosure of communications made during marriage.
While acknowledging that Family Courts are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, the High Court maintained that the right to privacy could not be compromised, and therefore, rejected the husband’s plea to admit the recordings.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma overruled the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that secretly recorded conversations between spouses were inadmissible under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court said,
“When we weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case.. In fact, Section 122 of the aforesaid Act does not recognise such a right at all.”
The apex court restored the earlier Family Court order, which had allowed a husband to submit a CD of phone recordings with his wife as evidence of cruelty in a divorce proceeding.
Section 122 protects the privacy of spousal communication. It says,
“No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.”
The Court said,
“We reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is that Section 122 of the Evidence Act recognises the right to a fair trial, the right to produce relevant evidence, and the right to prove one’s case against a spouse to avail the relief sought by a party.”
Still, the Supreme Court clarified that if one spouse records the other without consent, it reflects a breakdown of trust in the marriage, justifying the use of such evidence in court. The Court noted that when surveillance exists within a marriage, the relationship is already strained, and the recordings can help courts understand the reality of the situation.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna directly addressed the concern that admitting secretly recorded conversations could promote spousal snooping and disrupt domestic harmony. She acknowledged these arguments but firmly dismissed them, stating that:
“Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore infringing the objective of Section 122 of the Evidence Act.”
The Court added,
“We don’t think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.”
The Court held that such recordings reveal the true nature of the relationship and are therefore relevant to the dispute.
ALSO READ: Matrimonial Dispute| “Misunderstanding on the Concept of Mediation”: Supreme Court
Final Judgment
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CR No.1616 of 2020 (O&M), and restored the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda.
The Supreme Court directed the Family Court to take on record the supplementary affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief along with the memory card/chip of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD), and the transcript of the conversation recorded therein for the relevant period, and consider the same as evidence by law.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Court places on record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus, Ms. Vrinda Grover. The Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as honorarium for her services. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Case Title: Vibhor Garg vs Neha
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21195 of 2021
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Matrimonial Dispute
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
