1. Petition challenging family court order permitting husband to mark exhibits on WhatsApp chats in divorce suit. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(MP) 1055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Smt. Anjali Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Raman Upadhyay - Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 3395 of 2023
Decided On : 16-06-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Shubhendu Singh Chauhan.
For the Respondent: Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel.
For the Petitioner: Shri Shubhendu Singh Chauhan.
For the Respondent: Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel.
Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained. The right to privacy is not absolute and yields to the right to a fair trial, although courts must scrutinize the authenticity of such evidence during final adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 14 and 20; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 5 and 122; Constitution of India - Article 21; Information Technology Act - Sections 43, 66, and 72 - Admissibility of electronically obtained evidence in matrimonial disputes - Section 14 of the Family Courts Act allows the court to receive any report, statement, document, or information that may assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, regardless of whether it is relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act (Paras 10, 11, 12).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Privacy - While the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right and must be balanced against competing interests. In the context of a fair trial, the right to privacy may yield to the opposing party's right to bring relevant evidence to prove their case and the overarching cause of public justice (Paras 17, 19, 20).
(C) Admissibility vs. Reliance - The admission of evidence on record under Section 14 is not a proof of fact or an act of reliance by the court. It is a mere inclusion in the record; the court retains full discretion to assess, weigh, or discard such evidence based on authenticity and genuineness during the final adjudication stage (Paras 36, 38).
(D) Legal Doctrines - *Sub silentio* and *per incuriam* - A decision is treated as *per incuriam* when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or a rule having the force of a statute. Judgments passed without considering germane statutory provisions are not binding authorities (Paras 32, 34).
Facts of the case:
In a suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, the husband sought to exhibit WhatsApp chats of the wife with a third person. These chats were obtained via an application installed on the wife's phone that automatically forwarded messages to the husband's phone without her consent. The wife challenged the Family Court's order permitting these exhibits, alleging a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 and violations of the Information Technology Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Family Court correctly applied Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which relaxes strict rules of evidence to effectively resolve matrimonial disputes. The evidence's admissibility is governed by its relevance and the court's subjective satisfaction, not by the legality of the means used to collect it. Any liability for illegal collection of evidence remains a separate civil or criminal matter and does not render the evidence inadmissible in Family Court.
Issues: Whether electronic evidence obtained without consent and in alleged violation of the right to privacy is admissible in a Family Court under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Family Courts Act is a special provision that expands the principles of admissibility to enable Family Courts to deal effectively with personal disputes. The right to a fair trial and the administration of public justice outweigh the non-absolute right to privacy. Admissibility is determined by relevance at the threshold, whereas the weight and authenticity of such evidence are determined by judicial discretion at the adjudication stage.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
matrimonial disputes
-
divorce proceedings
- grounds for divorce: cruelty and adultery (Para 3)
-
divorce proceedings
-
matrimonial disputes
- evidence
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Wife argued evidence collected illegally violates privacy; husband argued relevance and admissibility under Section 14 Family Courts Act. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Court held that Section 14 Family Courts Act permits admission of relevant evidence irrespective of mode of collection, overriding evidentiary restrictions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Evidence in family court is admissible if relevant, irrespective of method of collection; right to privacy yields to fair trial. (Para 20 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 38 )
5. Petition dismissed; family court order allowing WhatsApp chats as evidence upheld. (Para 39 )
6. Does Section 14 Family Courts Act override strict evidence rules for family disputes?
Yes, it allows reception of any report or document if it assists effective dispute resolution, regardless of admissibility under Evidence Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 38 )
7. Is evidence obtained illegally admissible in family court?
Yes, evidence is admissible if relevant, irrespective of method of collection; court may later assess its weight and authenticity. (Para 15 , 20 , 21 , 38 )
8. Does the right to privacy preclude admission of private evidence in family court?
No, right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to right to fair trial and public justice under Section 14 Family Courts Act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
9. Are earlier MP High Court decisions restricting such evidence binding?
No, they were rendered per incuriam as they failed to consider Section 14 Family Courts Act and Section 122 Evidence Act. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
10. What safeguards should family courts adopt when admitting sensitive evidence under Section 14?
Courts must examine authenticity, conduct in-camera proceedings if needed, maintain decency, and allow aggrieved parties to pursue remedies for illegal collection. (Para 37 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner / defendant / wife has filed this misc. petition challenging the order dated 13/4/2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 122 - A / 2018 (HMA), whereby learned Family Court has permitted the respondent / plaintiff / husband to mark the exhibits on the WhatsApp chats produced by him in his evidence.
2. For the sake of convenience, petitioner and respondent hereinafter shall be referred to as wife and husband respectively.
3. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the marriage between the parties took place on 1/12/2016 at Gwalior as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Out of this wedlock, a baby girl was born on 11/10/2017. The husband has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under S.13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. He has also pleaded adultery on the part of wife. In order to prove adultery, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint, specific pleadings have been made with regard to WhatsApp chat of the wife with a third person. The husband has pleaded that by way of a special application installed in the wife's phone, the WhatsApp chatting of her phone are automatically forwarded to his phone, which shows that the wife is having extramarital affair with a third person.
4. The wife has filed her written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is also borne out from the records that she has also filed an application under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
5. When the suit was at the stage of husband's evidence, he sought to exhibit the WhatsApp chats, to which the wife raised an objection. The learned Family Court has rejected the wife's objection and has allowed the husband to exhibit the WhatsApp chats. Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court, the instant misc. petition has been filed by wife.
6. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that the act of husband in installing an application in wife's mobile, without her consent, was illegal and infringed her rights to privacy. It is his submission that since the evidence has been collected by illegal means, the husband cannot be allowed to rely upon such evidence and such evidence is inadmissible in evidence. He has further submitted that the evidence collected by husband is in violation of S.43, S.66 and S.72 of the Information Technology Act. Learned counsel for the wife has placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Others v. Union of India and Others , reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del. 8564, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Neha Garg v. Vibhor Garg , reported in 2021 SCC OnLine P and H 4571, judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rayala M. Bhuvaneshwari v. Nagaphanender Rayala , reported in AIR 2008 AP 98 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Talreja v. Smt. Sapna Talreja , passed in M.P. No.949/2022.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband submitted that the WhatsApp chats produced by the husband are relevant for establishing the allegation of adultery on the part of wife. Placing reliance upon S.14 of the Family Courts Act, learned counsel submitted that Family Court is competent to take in evidence the material which is relevant for decision of the case even if such evidence is otherwise inadmissible under Indian Evidence Act. He placed reliance upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain , reported in AIR 2016 Raj. 153, decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka reported in AIR 2020 Del. 156 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in X v. Y., reported in 2023:PHHC:165262 - DB.
8. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the record.
9. The validity of impugned order is required to be tested on the anvil of principles of admissibility of evidence keeping in view the statement of
