Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Manjari Tiwari (Dubey) W/o Vaibhav Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Vaibhav Dubey S/o Shri Ram Prakash Dubey – Respondent
ORDER :
Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
For convenience, the parties in this Writ Petition shall be referred to as the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband.
2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, CG (hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’) in Case No. 718/2023 by which the application filed by respondent/husband herein under Order VII Rule 14 CPC has been allowed.
3. Facts of the case in short: The respondent/husband filed an application seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner/wife under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1955”). During the pendency of the said divorce application, the respondent/husband filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for taking the mobile recording of the conversation and Whatsapp chat made between the petitioner/wife, her relatives and other persons on record. Application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was duly replied to by the petitioner/wife raising an objection that the respondent/husband was a man of suspicious mindset and that the call recording and the Whatsapp
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....
The right to privacy in matrimonial cases is not absolute and must yield to the right to present relevant evidence for a fair trial.
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....
Family Courts can admit evidence, including electronic documents, without strict adherence to Evidence Act requirements when necessary for effective adjudication.
The Family Courts Act permits lenient admissibility of evidence, allowing for tape-recorded conversations without the other party's consent, while upholding privacy rights.
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....
Family Courts have discretion to admit evidence that may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, focusing on relevance to the case.
Family Courts can devise their own procedures, allowing flexibility in evidence admission, and are not strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code in matrimonial matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the provisions of Section 14 of the Family Court's Act, the relevance and admissibility of evidence under the Indian Eviden....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
