In a landmark ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has addressed the issue of privacy within matrimonial disputes. The case, Misc. Petition No. 1422 of 2024, involves a petitioner challenging the admissibility of a recorded conversation between herself and a third party, which the respondent sought to use as evidence in a matrimonial dispute.
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on February 24, 2016. The petitioner filed for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., while the respondent sought to introduce an electronic document (a compact disk) containing a recorded conversation to substantiate claims of the petitioner’s alleged illicit relationship.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether a secretly recorded conversation could be admitted as evidence in a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner argued that such recordings violated fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to privacy. This argument was supported by precedents such as:
– People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997): This case emphasized the importance of privacy as a fundamental right.
– Aasha Lata Soni vs. Durgesh Soni (2023): Reinforced the stance on privacy in matrimonial disputes.
– Neha vs. Vibhore Garg (2021): Highlighted the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through privacy violations.
Court’s Decision
Justice Gajendra Singh, presiding over the case, ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the trial court’s order that had allowed the recorded conversation as evidence. The court observed that:
“The recording of a spouse’s private conversation without their knowledge is a severe violation of privacy and is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Justice Singh referenced previous judgments, including Anurima alias Abha Mehta vs. Sunil Mehta (2016) and Abhishek Ranjan and Hemlata Chaubey (2023), which held that such recordings infringe on the right to privacy and are not admissible as evidence.
Important Observations
The court made several key observations in its judgment:
1. Right to Privacy: The court underscored that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be infringed upon, even in matrimonial disputes.
2. Admissibility of Evidence: The court noted that evidence obtained through the violation of privacy cannot be admitted in court, aligning with the principles established in earlier cases.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judgment reinforced the importance of protecting individuals’ fundamental rights, even within the context of marital relationships.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 1422 of 2024
– Bench: Justici Justice Gajendra Singh
– Lawyers: Jyotsana Rathore for the petitioner, Lakhan Singh Chandel for the respondent
