Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA
Pritanshu Priyadarshini Biswal – Appellant
Versus
Sobhan Kumar Sahu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to family court order regarding evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. inadmissibility of tape recorded conversation. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence act provisions in family court proceedings. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's acceptance of family court's actions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
3. Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier prayer of the Petitioner with regard to playing of the CD in Court was rejected by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The document does not bear the certificate as required under Section 65 -B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The document contents privilege communication between the Petitioner and Opposite Party, which should not be utilized in a Court proceeding as it is inadmissible in evidence. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court , reported in AIR 2015 Raj 146 wherein it is held as under:
26. In view of above, this Court is inclined to concur with the view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari (supra) that recorded conversation between the petitioner and the respondent
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....
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.
Personal diaries do not fall under privileged communication as defined by Section 122 of the Evidence Act, allowing their admissibility in court during legal proceedings.
The admissibility of electronic evidence requires strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, including proper certification and pleadings.
Family Courts can admit evidence, including electronic documents, without strict adherence to Evidence Act requirements when necessary for effective adjudication.
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....
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
