Breach Of Privacy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Declines Admission Of Unauthorised Recordings Of Wife's Conversations In Matrimonial Dispute

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has addressed the issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence recorded illegally in matrimonial disputes.

Justice Gajendra Singh set aside a previous order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, which allowed the inclusion of an illegally recorded conversation as evidence. It was held that unauthorized recording breaches privacy rights.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on February 24, 2016, in Indore.

Subsequently, disputes arose, leading the petitioner to file a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking interim maintenance.

During these proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), requesting the court to take an electronic document, specifically a compact disk containing recorded conversations, on record as evidence of alleged adultery by the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the admissibility of the recorded conversation on several grounds including the violation of Fundamental Rights and infringement of privacy.

The petitioner argued that the inclusion of the recorded conversation violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to privacy. She relied on precedents such as People's Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997) and Aasha Lata Soni vs. Durgesh Soni (2023). It was contended that recording a private conversation without the knowledge or consent of the involved party constitutes a grave breach of privacy.

Previous judgments, notably Anurima alias Abha Mehta vs. Sunil Mehta (2016) and Abhishek Ranjan and Hemlata Chaubey (2023), were cited, where the court held that such recordings without the spouse's knowledge infringe upon Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The respondent through his counsel, contended that direct evidence of adultery is rare, and the recorded conversations provided crucial indirect evidence.

The respondent argued that the right to privacy under Article 21 is not absolute, especially in the context of matrimonial disputes where the spouse's conduct is under scrutiny. The respondent's rights under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Court Act should prevail, and the proceedings could be conducted in-camera to protect the parties' privacy.

Justice Gajendra Singh analyzed the arguments and the legal precedents. The court made the observation that the impugned order admitted the electronic record primarily because the matter was at the stage of evidence, and the petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the evidence. \

However, the court highlighted that recording a spouse's private conversation without their knowledge is a severe violation of privacy. Referring to previous rulings, the court emphasized that such actions infringe upon constitutional rights. The cases of Anurima alias Abha Mehta vs. Sunil Mehta and Abhishek Ranjan and Hemlata Chaubey were consistent in holding that unauthorized recording breaches privacy rights.

Based on these considerations, the High Court concluded that the Family Court's order dated November 24, 2022, was not sustainable. Consequently, the order allowing the inclusion of the electronic evidence was set aside.

Click Here To Read/Download Order