Evidence – Admissibility of Covertly Recorded Spousal Conversations – Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984 – Right to Privacy under Article 21, Constitution of India
Supreme Court of India – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction – Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21195 of 2021 – Judgment dated July 14, 2025 – Nagarathna, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
In a divorce proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant-husband sought to introduce covertly recorded telephonic conversations with the respondent-wife as evidence. The Family Court allowed the evidence, but the High Court set aside the order, citing violation of the respondent’s right to privacy.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 122 of the Evidence Act permits disclosure of spousal communications in suits between married persons, as an exception to the privilege protecting such communications. The Court ruled that the right to privacy under Article 21 is not violated in such cases, as the rationale of Section 122 is to protect marital sanctity, not individual privacy.
Covertly recorded conversations are admissible if they meet the three-fold test of relevance, voice identification, and accuracy under Sections 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act, as supplemented by Section 65B for electronic evidence. The Court emphasized that the Family Court’s discretion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act allows deviation from strict evidence rules to ensure fair adjudication, but was not necessary here as the Evidence Act itself permitted the evidence.
The impugned High Court order was set aside, and the Family Court was directed to admit the appellant’s supplementary affidavit, memory card, CD, and transcript of the recorded conversations as evidence, to be considered in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed.
Cases Referred: M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876; Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCR 417; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., (2023) 4 SCC 1.
