The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that the right to privacy, though a fundamental right, is not absolute and must yield to the right of a fair trial in matrimonial disputes. Dismissing a wife’s petition, the Court upheld a Family Court’s order allowing a husband to produce mobile recordings and WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce proceeding, observing that evidence cannot be excluded solely because it was obtained without consent.
Case Background
The controversy originated from a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Seeking to substantiate his grounds for divorce, the husband filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to bring on record specific mobile recordings of conversations and WhatsApp chats involving the petitioner-wife and others.
The petitioner-wife vehemently opposed this application. She contended that the husband possessed a “suspicious mindset” and alleged that the electronic evidence was procured illegally by hacking her mobile phone. She argued that admitting such evidence would violate her fundamental right to life and personal liberty, specifically her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, rejected her objections and allowed the husband’s application on December 12, 2024, noting that the documents were relevant for deciding the dispute. Aggrieved by this, the wife approached the High Court in WP227 No. 158 of 2025.
Arguments Raised
Petitioner’s Contentions: Counsel for the petitioner-wife argued that the evidence was obtained through fraud and without consent, constituting a direct invasion of privacy. Citing the Chhattisgarh High Court’s earlier decision in Aasha Lata Soni v. Durgesh Soni (2023), it was submitted that documents obtained through illegal means should be inadmissible.
Respondent’s Contentions: Counsel for the respondent-husband defended the impugned order, pointing out that the electronic evidence was accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, certifying its genuineness. He argued that the method of obtaining evidence does not render it inadmissible if it is relevant to the fact in issue. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan and the recent ruling in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025).
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Sachin Singh Rajput delivered the verdict, focusing on the interplay between the strict rules of evidence and the special provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
1. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act: The Court emphasized that Section 14 is a special piece of legislation that dilutes the strict principles of the Indian Evidence Act. It empowers the Family Court to receive any document or information that may assist it in dealing effectually with a dispute, “whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
“The only guiding factor for a Family Court is that in its opinion such evidence would assist it to deal with the matrimonial dispute effectually and effectively,” the Court observed.
2. Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence: Addressing the plea regarding the illegal procurement of evidence, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra. The Bench reiterated the settled legal position that even if evidence is obtained by illegal means, it remains admissible provided it is relevant and genuine.
3. Privacy vs. Fair Trial: The Court undertook a balancing exercise between the petitioner’s right to privacy and the respondent’s right to a fair trial. While acknowledging the landmark Puttaswamy judgment which recognized privacy as a fundamental right, the Court noted that such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
“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,” Justice Rajput held.
The Court reasoned that Family Courts adjudicate sensitive personal disputes involving intimacies. If Section 14 were held not to apply to evidence impinging on privacy, the very object of the Family Courts Act would be defeated.
4. Section 122 of Evidence Act: Relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025 INSC 829), the High Court clarified that Section 122 of the Evidence Act (spousal privilege) is designed to protect the “sanctity of marriage,” not individual privacy. Therefore, in suits between married persons, the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration for claiming privilege under this section.
Decision
The High Court held that the Family Court was fully justified in permitting the husband to place the electronic documents on record. The Court ruled that the test of admissibility in such proceedings is strictly “relevance,” and fundamental considerations of fair trial and public justice warrant the reception of such evidence regardless of how it was collected.
The petition was dismissed, and the Family Court’s order was affirmed.
