B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Vibhor Garg – Appellant
Versus
Neha – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between spouses in a divorce proceeding can be considered under certain conditions. The evidence may be summoned to fill lacunae in the case, especially when it is relevant to the dispute and can be authenticated and verified for accuracy.
However, the court's discretion to admit such evidence is guided by principles that balance relevance, authenticity, and the right to privacy. The evidence can be considered after cross-examination of the party who produced it, which allows for testing the genuineness, accuracy, and context of the recordings.
Importantly, the admissibility hinges on satisfying relevant legal tests, such as establishing the authenticity and accuracy of the recordings, and ensuring that the evidence is not manipulated. The court may also consider whether the evidence was obtained in a manner consistent with legal standards, while recognizing that covert recordings made without consent are not per se inadmissible, provided they meet relevance and authenticity criteria.
In conclusion, such evidence can be summoned to fill lacunae and be subjected to cross-examination, but its acceptance will depend on satisfying the relevant legal parameters, including relevance, authenticity, and procedural law, with due regard to the right to privacy and the specific exceptions under the applicable evidentiary provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case involving divorce and evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments supporting admissibility of covertly recorded evidence in divorce. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. privacy considerations in the context of evidentiary rules. (Para 6 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present civil appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CR No. 1616 of 2020 (O&M), wherein the High Court has allowed the civil revision petition filed by the respondent herein.
Factual Background:
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 20.02.2009. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 11.05.2011. Due to marital discord between the parties, the appellant filed a divorce petition being CIS No. DMC/405/2017 under Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 before the Family Court, Bathinda, on 07.07.2017. The divorce petition was subsequently amended and filed again on 03.04.2018.
3.1 When the aforesaid case was listed for evidence, the appellant herein submitted his affidavit of examination-in-c
Deepinder Singh Mann vs. Ranjit Kaur, 2014 SCC Online P&H 4826 [Para 3.6, 4.5
Tripat Deep Singh vs. Paviter Kaur, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 71 [Para 3.6, 4.5
Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala, AIR 2008 A.P. 98 [Para 3.6, 4.5
Anurima @ Abha Mehta vs. Sunil Mehta S/o Chandmal, (2016) 2 RCR (Civil) 773 [Para 3.6, 4.5
Vishal Kaushik vs. Family Court, 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.) [Para 3.6, 4.5
Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC Online Del 672 [Para 4.4
Preeti Jain vs. Kunal Jain, AIR 2016 Raj 153 [Para 4.4
Essaki Ammal @ Chitra vs. Veerabhadra @ Kumar
Havovi Kersi Sethna vs. Kersi Gustad Sethna, 2011 SCC Online Bom 120 [Para 4.4
Aasha Lata Soni vs. Durgesh Soni, 2023 SCC Online Chh 3959 [Para 4.5
Neha vs. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC Online P&H 4469 [Para 4.5
Dharmesh Sharma vs. Tanisha Sharma, 2024 SCC Online H.P. 5208 [Para 4.5
Norendra Nath Mozumdar vs. State
Vilas Raghunath Kurhade vs. State of Maharashtra
Ram Bharosey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1954) 1 SCC 284 [Para 8.5
Appu Alias Ayyanar Padayachi vs. State, AIR 1971 Madras 194 [Para 8.6
Shankar vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs. State of Maharashtra
R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra
Essaki Ammal @ Chitra vs. Veerabhadra @ Kumar
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) vs. Union of India
Kaushal Kishor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Right to privacy – Section 122 of Evidence Act does not touch upon aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of Constitution – Section 122 of Evidence Act recognises right to a fair tr....
The right to privacy in matrimonial disputes is not absolute and must balance with the right to fair trial, allowing relevant evidence to be admitted even if obtained through means that raise questio....
Electronic evidence – Right to holding telephone conversation in privacy of one’s home/office without interference can be claimed as a “Right to Privacy”—Telephone tapping/illegal means of collecting....
Tape recordings made without the knowledge of one party infringe their right to privacy and violate constitutional rights, rendering them inadmissible in evidence for deciding divorce petitions under....
The Family Courts Act permits lenient admissibility of evidence, allowing for tape-recorded conversations without the other party's consent, while upholding privacy rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance leveraging technology, specifically videoconferencing, with preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings, ensuring privacy, ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.