Kanaparthi Ganga Srinivas vs Indoori Sravani - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20219

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20219

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Kanaparthi Ganga Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
Indoori Sravani – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.247 and 253 of 2025

Important Points

Call recordings made without the consent of the other party constitute a breach of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and are therefore inadmissible in evidence.

Subject

Civil Law - Matrimonial Disputes

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.VII R.14(3), S.151
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S.65-A, S.65-B
Constitution of India: Art.21

Headnote

The matter involves an appeal against the dismissal of applications filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to admit electronic and secondary evidence in a divorce petition based on cruelty. The petitioner sought to introduce call recordings and financial/travel documents, which the trial court rejected due to the absence of a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and lack of admissibility. The primary issues concern whether the trial court was justified in rejecting electronic evidence without a Section 65-B certificate and whether call recordings without consent are admissible. The court reasoned that recording conversations without consent is a breach of the right to privacy guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the court found that the documents produced (medical records and travel tickets) did not support the allegation of cruelty but instead suggested a cordial marital life. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history of application for electronic evidence admission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding verification of evidence and stage of admissibility. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. inadmissibility of non-consensual recordings under art. 21 privacy rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. relevance of evidence to the specific ground of cruelty. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. confirmation of trial court's order and dismissal of revisions. (Para 17 , 18)

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue raised in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common order dated 23.12.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.47 of 2023 and 79 of 2023 in H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2023 (Old HMOP No.144 of 2019) by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpalli (for short ‘the trial Court’).

3. The petitioner herein is the husband, and the respondent herein is the wife.

4. Originally, the HMOP No.153 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. At the stage of trial, the petitioner intended to file certain documents as primary and secondary in nature, including electronic evidence and accordingly, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.47 of 2023 and 79 of 2023 for receiving and allowing the documents under VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. The trial Court dismissed both the IAs vide common order dated 23.12.2024 by observing as follows :-

“Section 65-A says that the contents of Electronic Records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of the IEA. Section 65-B of IEA prescribed the mode of proof of contents of electronic records. The Section lays down certain conditions which have to be satisfied in relation to the information and the Computer in question. If those conditions are satisfied, the Electronic Record shall become admissible in any proceedings without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated in it.
In the instant case, the Petitioner filed Sl.No.141 to SI.No.144 without producing any Certificate under Section 65-B of IEA. Further, there is no clarity regarding whether the Petitioner is having primary evidence of such Mobile where he recorded the alleged call recordings or whether he applied for from such Authority or Person to know whether such person or authority refuses to give such Certificate or does not reply to such demand, for production of Certificate, to be dispensed with. Hence, the Documents i.e., Electronic Record sought to be received in Sl.No.141 to SI.No.144 are not admissible in evidence.”

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petitions instead of dismissing them, as the respondent herein would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner and test the veracity of her case. The trial Court also failed to consider that the authenticity and genuineness of the call and voice recordings filed by the petitioner had been verified by a highly reputed organization, namely, Truth Labs and that the recordings were submitted in a sealed cover.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court arbitrarily rejected the documents filed by the petitioner. The trial Court completely overlooked the fact that several of the documents had been downloaded directly from the websites of the concerned banks and credit card issuers. The petitioner was also prepared to depose regarding the authenticity of such documents and to demonstrate, through access to his accounts using his user IDs and passwords, the primary sources from which the documents were obtained and printed for production before the trial Court.

9. Le