Back
Privacy Takes a Backseat: Chhattisgarh HC Greenlights WhatsApp Chats in Divorce Battle
In a ruling that balances the scales between personal privacy and courtroom fairness, the has dismissed a wife's challenge to a family court order allowing her husband to introduce her call recordings and WhatsApp chats as evidence in their ongoing divorce proceedings. Delivered by Justice Sachin Singh Rajput on , the decision underscores that in family courts, relevance trumps rigid privacy claims.
From Suspicion to Courtroom Evidence
The saga began when the husband filed for divorce under , alleging cruelty and desertion. Amid proceedings in the (Case No. 718/2023), he sought to bring on record mobile recordings of conversations and WhatsApp chats involving the wife, her relatives, and others via an application under .
The wife objected fiercely, claiming the husband—a man of "suspicious mindset"—had hacked her phone, invading her privacy rights. The family court, however, allowed the application on , deeming the material potentially useful for deciding the divorce. The wife then approached the high court via Writ Petition No. 158 of 2025 , arguing the evidence was illegally obtained and inadmissible.
Wife's Privacy Plea vs Husband's Fair Trial Push
The wife's counsel painted a picture of digital trespass: the chats and calls were procured fraudulently, without consent, breaching fundamental rights and echoing a prior Chhattisgarh ruling in Aasha Lata Soni v. Durgesh Soni (2023). They urged rejection, insisting such evidence couldn't see the light of day in court.
The husband countered that post-approval, the documents were exhibited without protest, backed by a certificate confirming no tampering. His team argued no prejudice to the wife—admission doesn't equate to proof—and cited Supreme Court precedents like M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan (1969) and the recent Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025 INSC 829), stressing that even illegally obtained evidence can be relevant if genuine.
Diluting Evidence Rules: The Family Court Edge
Justice Rajput delved into , which empower family courts to receive any evidence aiding dispute resolution, overriding the 's strictures—including Section 122 on spousal communications. Drawing from R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the court affirmed that illegally obtained evidence remains admissible if relevant.
Privacy, while fundamental per K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), isn't absolute, as clarified in Sharda v. Dharampal (2003). In matrimonial battles, it must yield to fair trial rights. The bench emphasized: family courts handle intimate disputes, so excluding private evidence would gut Section 14 's purpose. Relevance alone governs admissibility.
Recent media coverage echoed this, noting the ruling prevents Section 14 from becoming a " " and prioritizes public justice in sensitive family matters.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
"Section 14 of the Act of 1984 provides for an exception to the general rule of evidence regarding admissibility of any report, statements, documents... which the Family Court considers necessary to assist itself to deal effectually with a dispute."
-
"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."
-
"If Section 14 is held not to apply in its full expanse to evidence that impinges on a person's right to privacy, then not only of Section 14 but the very object of constitution of Family Courts may be rendered meaningless. Therefore, the test of admissibility would only be the relevance."
-
"
does not concern itself with right to privacy of the spouses... the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration."
Petition Dismissed: Relevance Rules the Day
The high court upheld the family court's order in full:
"the petition is without any substance and therefore it is hereby dismissed. Order impugned is affirmed."
This means the husband can proceed with the evidence, which must still be proved at trial. For future cases, it signals family courts' broad leeway on electronic evidence in divorces—privacy claims won't block relevant material, potentially reshaping how spouses gather and use digital proof in intimate disputes.
