Dharmesh Sharma VS Tanisha Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Dharmesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Tanisha Sharma – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek, Advocate

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Bipin Chander Negi, J.—By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2022, whereby the trial Court has rejected an application under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

3. A perusal of the application filed under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act reveals that by way of the present application, the petitioner intends to place on record an alleged conversation inter se the respondent-wife with her mother.

4. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that a telephone conversation is an important facet of an individual’s private life. The right to holding a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home/office without interference can certainly be claimed as a “Right to Privacy.” Telephone tapping/illegal means of collecting evidence in the aforesaid context would therefore infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by the law.

5. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer case r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document