Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Gurubaksh Lal Swangla – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenakshi – Respondent
CMPMO No. 457 of 2025 | CMP. No. 26 of 2025 | HMP No.32/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kishore Pundeer
For the Respondents: None
Spousal communications may not be shielded by privacy rights under certain conditions in family law contexts, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 14(3) - Hindu Marriage Act - The petitioner sought to produce electronic records in a family law proceeding, previously dismissed for violating rights to privacy as established in legal precedents. The Supreme Court's later judgment clarified that spousal communications may not be shielded by privacy rights under certain conditions, leading to the application's reconsideration. (Paras 4, 8, 6, 7)
(B) Right to Privacy - The right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution may be overridden in marital disputes, distinguishing spousal communication privileges. (Paras 8, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought permission to introduce a recorded conversation as evidence in a divorce petition, but this request was denied by a lower court based on privacy rights. The Supreme Court later indicated that privacy rights might not apply fully in spousal communication contexts.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's denial to present the evidence was found to be unsustainable under the new legal understanding, necessitating a re-evaluation under current law.
Issues: The court addressed whether spousal communications recorded without consent are protected under privacy laws and how recent rulings influence this protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the previous ruling on privacy was inappropriate in light of the Supreme Court’s clarifications, thus directing a fresh consideration of the evidence.
Result: The order dated 07.05.2025 is set aside, and the court is directed to reconsider the application anew in line with legal precedents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to service through family member. (Para 2 , 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 457 of 2025 Decided on : 12.08.2025 Gurubaksh Lal Swangla.
…Petitioner Versus Smt. Meenakshi.
…Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate.
For the respondent : None. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral As per report of the Registry, respondent has been served through her mother, who has refused to accept the notice on the ground that the respondent is presently residing at Chandigarh.
2. As the respondent stands duly served through a major family member, therefore, there is deemed service of the respondent. As none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, she is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respec.tfully, prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in CMP. No. 26 of 2025 (Regn. No.218/2025), in caose HMP No.32/2021 (Regn. No.221/2021), titled Gurubaksh Lal Swangla Vs. Smt. Meenakshi, whereby the application, as filed by the petitionuer under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code , for seeking permission to produce electronic record i.e. pen drive and Transcription of the voice recording of contained in the pen drive, stand dismissed, may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the above stated application, as petitioner/plaintiff/applicant, filed by the may kindly be H allowed in the interest of law and justice.”
4. The application filed by the petitioner, under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected by the learned Court below by returning the following reasons:-
“8. Petition under Section 13(1)(1a) (1b) of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the applicant/petitioner on 27-11-2021 and vide order dated 22-02-2025, issues have been framed in the matter and case was posted for evidence of the petitioner. However, till date no evidence has been led and instant application has filed seeking permission to produce on record the electronic record i.e., pen drive, containing conversation between petitioner and respondent and also accompanied by transcription and now seeks the tindulgence of this Court to allow the application to produce and prove the conversation between the parties on record. Reliance is made here to case titled Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanende Rayala AIR 2008 AP 98 passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, wherein, similar issue arose for decision and Hon'ble High Court, after taking into consideration the factual position of the case as well as the law on the point, have held that i conversation has been recorded without consent of one party and it is illegal and infringing the right of privacy of wife, therefore, the tape even if true, cannot be admissible in evidence. Protection of life and personal liberty is right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and once the fact is established as the case, Article 21 of Indian Constitution would be attracted and said right can not be curtailed. Moreover, reference is also made to decision of case titled as K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2018 (1) SCC 809, wherein right to privacy is recognized as fundamental right.
9. Reverting to the instant case, the phone conversation recording in th e pen drive is the conversation took place between the parties to the lis and said conversation is recorded by the applicant/petitioner without the consetnt of the respondent, as such same is not legal but violating her right to privacy, which is protected under Article 21 of Indian Constitution, as such, applicant cari not be allowed to place an
