The Supreme Court has accepted a husband’s plea to use his wife’s phone conversations, which were recorded without her knowledge, as evidence in their pending divorce case. The Supreme Court said that the husband’s actions do not violate any laws.
This ruling by the Supreme Court reverses a previous ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which determined that allowing a the husband to present his wife’s recorded conversations obtained without her knowledge as evidence would infringe on her fundamental right to privacy in the divorce proceedings.
In this case, the couple got married on February 20, 2009 and welcomed a daughter on May 11, 2011. However, due to ongoing marital issues, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the Family Court on July 7, 2017. On April 3, 2018, he amended the divorce petition and submitted his affidavit for examination on December 7, 2018.
On July 9, 2019, the husband sought permission to present evidence, namely memory cards/chips from mobile phones, a compact disc (CD) and transcripts of the recorded conversations. The husband said that several phone calls took place between them from November 2010 to December 2010, as well as between August 2016 and December 2016, which he recorded and saved in the memory cards/chips of the mobile phones. The husband also prepared the transcripts of those recorded conversations.
Therefore, the husband requested to be allowed to file his supplementary affidavit along with the memory cards/chips of the respective mobile phones, CD and transcripts of the recorded conversations for his examination-in-chief.
The wife herein opposed the application because the examination-in-chief was already done. Plus there was a dispute over whether the memory card/chips along with CD and transcripts can be admitted as evidence and said these electronic instruments cannot be exhibited. Therefore, she asked for the application he filed to be dismissed.
Also read: Government deducted gratuity and pension of a retired engineer for not vacating govt residence on time, he fights back and wins case in Supreme Court
Supreme Court said this
The Supreme Court said in the judgement (2025 INSC 829) dated July 14, 2025, that as per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, the law prevents disclosure of marital communications without a consent from the opposite party, except in legal proceedings between the husband and wife or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.
The Supreme Court stated: “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Thus the Supreme Court held that in this case there was no breach of privacy and also said that Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right.
Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court said that on the contrary, the Evidence Act talks about an exception to the privacy between couples.
The Supreme Court said: "We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. In fact, Section 122 of Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all. It does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. It does recognise the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence, and right to prove one's case against the spouse so as to avail relief sought.”
Advocate Anadi Mishra who practices in Delhi High Court said to ET Wealth Online: "The Supreme Court in this judgement (2025 INSC 829) has, for the first time, authoritatively settled the legal position on whether covertly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted in divorce proceedings. Interpreting Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that while spousal communications are ordinarily privileged, the exception for “suits between married persons” applies to matrimonial litigation. The Court clarified that the privilege is not absolute and does not bar one spouse from producing recordings of communications made by the other in divorce proceedings."
Mishra says: "The Court further relied on earlier precedents such as Yusufalli Nagree and R.M. Malkani to reaffirm that evidence is not rendered inadmissible merely because it was secretly or even illegally obtained; the tests are relevance, authenticity, and accuracy. By holding that covert recordings can be admitted subject to safeguards under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and by directing in-camera proceedings to protect privacy, the judgment harmonises the right to privacy with the right to a fair trial. The Court itself refuted the claim that this would encourage snooping, observing that “snooping is the effect, not the cause, of marital breakdown.”
Aakanksha Nehra, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says that there always has been a debate about the legal interpretation of issues surrounding law of torts and customs leading to binding obligations. However, this judgement succinctly clarifies what has been encapsulated in the statute itself.
Nehra says: "The very exception to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1872 itself expressly and unambiguously excludes the usage of such confidential communication in respect of legal proceedings ensuing between the spouses. Hence, this judgement further reinforces the intent of the law and the contents of the provision that confidentiality can only act as a restrain we a mode of privilege for disclosure to third parties."
Nehra adds: "However, it cannot be employed as a means to not be held responsible for statements made inter se the spouses and they remain accordingly bound by their own statements made to the spouse. This judgement thus enables a party to remain entitled to hold their spouse accountable to the exchanges made in private. It does create an issue of lack of consent prevailing on account of recordings being made secretively. However, the use of such documents or communication is clearly enabled by the law and hence, rightly upheld."
Also read: Delhi Customs seize man’s Rolex watch upon arrival from Dubai; High Court allows him to retrieve it after paying redemption fine
The Supreme Court observed:
The Supreme Court said that the following principles and interpretations can be culled out:
(i) Unlike Section 120 of the Evidence Act, which deals with competency of a husband or a wife to be a witness in a civil or criminal proceeding involving the other, Section 122 of the said Act deals with the admissibility of privileged communications made by a married person to a partner during the subsistence of the marriage.
(ii) Section 122 of the Evidence Act is worded in two parts – one, dealing with ‘compellability’ and the other, dealing with ‘permissibility’. These two parts are separated by a semi-colon, which shows that the two parts are separate and have to be read disjunctively.
(iii) The first part deals with ‘compellability’. Here, if one of the spouses is not willing to disclose the communication made to the other, the latter cannot be compelled by any court, authority or person, which by law is otherwise competent to compel the person to give evidence, to disclose what their married partner communicated to the said spouse during the time when the marriage was subsisting. This is a blanket bar which cannot be relaxed in any situation. This protects the right to privacy between a married couple.
(iv) The second part deals with ‘permissibility’. This is an even greater restriction than the first part. Here, even if one of the spouses is willing to disclose the communication made to him/her, the Court still cannot permit it to be taken as evidence, unless the other spouse who made that communication, or their representative-in-interest, consents to the disclosure of such communication. In other words, without the consent of the spouse who made the communication, the court cannot permit the other spouse to disclose that communication. Another way of looking at it is that if one of the spouses is willing to disclose the communication, then it is not the court that can give consent to the disclosure but it is actually the other spouse who made that communication who can consent to disclosing it.
(v) The second part, relating to ‘permissibility’, is then followed by two exceptions which are – a. proceedings in suits between married persons, b. proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against each other. Therefore, it means that in these two given scenarios, the requirement of taking consent from the other spouse before being permitted to disclose the communication is done away with.
[Ref.: M.C. Verghese vs. T.J. Poonan, (1969) 1 SCC 37]
vi) The provision is neither an absolute bar on any person nor on the communication. It puts a specific and limited bar on a married person from disclosing the communication made to him/her by his/her spouse during the subsistence of a marriage between them.
(vii) If the marriage was subsisting at the time when the communications were made, the bar prescribed by Section 122 of the Evidence Act will operate. The bar to the admissibility in evidence of communications made during marriage attaches at the time when the communication is made and its admissibility will be adjudged in light of the status on the date and not the status at the date when evidence is sought to be given in court.
(viii) The provision applies vis-à-vis a legally wedded wife and not to any other kind of relationship. [Ref.: Shankar vs. State of T.N, (1994) 4 SCC 478]
(ix) The prohibition of disclosure under the Section applies even after the marriage is no longer subsisting, if the “communication”, whose disclosure is sought to be prohibited, is only the one that was made during the subsistence of the marriage.
x) The bar from disclosure under the provision applies to the spouse to whom the communication was made and not to the spouse who made the communication. For example, if X and Y are married, then X cannot disclose what Y told to her and Y cannot disclose what X told to him. But X can disclose what she told to Y and Y can disclose what he told to X.
(xi) Hence, under this Section, it is only the spouses who are barred from disclosing what was said to them by the other spouse. The bar is not on other persons like the family members, kith and kin or third-parties who may have heard or overheard that communication. [Ref.: Appu vs. The State, AIR 1971 Mad 194]
(xii) The bar does not also apply to the communication made to a third party even if the same communication was made to that third party which was made to the spouse. For example, X tells something to spouse Y. X tells the same thing to friend Z. Then Y is barred under thisSection to disclose that communication, but not Z.
xiii) The use of the blanket word “any communication” means that the bar in the Section applies to disclosing all kinds of communication and not just private/confidential communication. The communication may also be oral or written or sign language.
xiv) However, the use of the word “communication”, followed by the phrase “made to him”, denotes that the communication here should not be read as ‘conversation’ or a ‘dialogue’. When communication is made to a person, it would mean that a message or information has been conveyed by one person to the other.
This can be understood by an illustration. Suppose in a trial for the murder of a person ‘Z’, the husband ‘Y’ is being tried as an accused. The wife ‘X’ comes to the witness box to depose about the conversation that happened between X and Y on the day of the crime. X deposes as under:
“On that night, when my husband Y came back home, his clothes were drenched in blood. I was scared to see that. I asked Y, “What happened? Whose blood is this? Did you kill someone?” Y replied back in anger and said, “Z had been troubling me for a long time, so today I killed him.” Shocked to hear this, I further asked “Where is the body? What did you kill him with?” Y replied in a whispering tone and said, “I killed him using a knife and buried the body in the park.” (underlining by Supreme Court)
Supreme Court analyses Article 21
The Supreme Court said that in view of the aforesaid discussion, they firstly observe that Section 122 of the Evidence Act is not assailed in these proceedings. Secondly, under Section 122 of the Act, privileged communication between the spouses is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationships.
However, the exception under Section 122 of the Evidence Act has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court said that when they weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, they do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case.
In fact, Section 122 of the aforesaid Act does not recognise such a right at all. On the other hand, the said Section carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.
The Supreme Court said: “In this regard, we reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is because Section 122 of the Evidence Act recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one’s case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party.”
Also read: Mental cruelty: Wife pressured husband to abandon mother, sister; Delhi High Court grants divorce to husband on this ground
The Supreme Court said that Section 122 of the Evidence Act deals with both compellability as well as permissibility.
The first part deals with compellability while the second part deals with permissibility. The second part dealing with permissibility is followed by two exceptions which are –
Also read: Delhi High Court reprimands wife for filing false Section 498A, 406, 34 cases against husband’s family
The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, the exception has been carved out in Section 122 of the Evidence Act itself to state that such privilege between spousal communication does not extend to a case of litigation between the spouses themselves. In such a situation, the spouses would have the right to prove their respective cases and therefore can let in such evidence which is permitted under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, if one could use the expression “spill the beans”
The Supreme Court reiterated that the content of a common law right may be similar to that of a fundamental right, but they are distinguished by the incidence of their duties on private entities and the State respectively. Therefore, one can foist similar obligations on private bodies and the State, while separating the avenues by which these obligations are enforced.
The Supreme Court said: “In our view, Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not concern itself with right to privacy vis-à-vis spouses which is evident on a reading of the Section and on discerning its plain meaning.”
Supreme Court judgement
The Supreme Court said that the founding rationale for Section 122 of the Evidence Act, as has been recognised by the Law Commission and subsequently by certain High Courts, was to protect the sanctity of marriage and not the right to privacy of the individuals involved.
The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, in adjudicating situations where the privilege under Section 122 of the Act is not granted, as in suits between a couple (an exception provided for in Section 122 itself), the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration, since it is not the rationale under which spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of the Act.”
Judgement: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CR No.1616 of 2020 (O & M) and restore the order passed by the Family Court dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda. The Family Court is directed to take on record the supplementary affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief along with memory card/chip of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD) and transcript of the conversation recorded in memory card/chips of the mobile phones for the relevant period and consider the same as evidence, in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
This ruling by the Supreme Court reverses a previous ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which determined that allowing a the husband to present his wife’s recorded conversations obtained without her knowledge as evidence would infringe on her fundamental right to privacy in the divorce proceedings.
In this case, the couple got married on February 20, 2009 and welcomed a daughter on May 11, 2011. However, due to ongoing marital issues, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the Family Court on July 7, 2017. On April 3, 2018, he amended the divorce petition and submitted his affidavit for examination on December 7, 2018.
On July 9, 2019, the husband sought permission to present evidence, namely memory cards/chips from mobile phones, a compact disc (CD) and transcripts of the recorded conversations. The husband said that several phone calls took place between them from November 2010 to December 2010, as well as between August 2016 and December 2016, which he recorded and saved in the memory cards/chips of the mobile phones. The husband also prepared the transcripts of those recorded conversations.
Therefore, the husband requested to be allowed to file his supplementary affidavit along with the memory cards/chips of the respective mobile phones, CD and transcripts of the recorded conversations for his examination-in-chief.
The wife herein opposed the application because the examination-in-chief was already done. Plus there was a dispute over whether the memory card/chips along with CD and transcripts can be admitted as evidence and said these electronic instruments cannot be exhibited. Therefore, she asked for the application he filed to be dismissed.
Also read: Government deducted gratuity and pension of a retired engineer for not vacating govt residence on time, he fights back and wins case in Supreme Court
Supreme Court said this
The Supreme Court said in the judgement (2025 INSC 829) dated July 14, 2025, that as per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, the law prevents disclosure of marital communications without a consent from the opposite party, except in legal proceedings between the husband and wife or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.
The Supreme Court stated: “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Thus the Supreme Court held that in this case there was no breach of privacy and also said that Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right.
Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court said that on the contrary, the Evidence Act talks about an exception to the privacy between couples.
The Supreme Court said: "We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. In fact, Section 122 of Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all. It does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. It does recognise the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence, and right to prove one's case against the spouse so as to avail relief sought.”
Advocate Anadi Mishra who practices in Delhi High Court said to ET Wealth Online: "The Supreme Court in this judgement (2025 INSC 829) has, for the first time, authoritatively settled the legal position on whether covertly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted in divorce proceedings. Interpreting Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that while spousal communications are ordinarily privileged, the exception for “suits between married persons” applies to matrimonial litigation. The Court clarified that the privilege is not absolute and does not bar one spouse from producing recordings of communications made by the other in divorce proceedings."
Mishra says: "The Court further relied on earlier precedents such as Yusufalli Nagree and R.M. Malkani to reaffirm that evidence is not rendered inadmissible merely because it was secretly or even illegally obtained; the tests are relevance, authenticity, and accuracy. By holding that covert recordings can be admitted subject to safeguards under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and by directing in-camera proceedings to protect privacy, the judgment harmonises the right to privacy with the right to a fair trial. The Court itself refuted the claim that this would encourage snooping, observing that “snooping is the effect, not the cause, of marital breakdown.”
Aakanksha Nehra, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says that there always has been a debate about the legal interpretation of issues surrounding law of torts and customs leading to binding obligations. However, this judgement succinctly clarifies what has been encapsulated in the statute itself.
Nehra says: "The very exception to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1872 itself expressly and unambiguously excludes the usage of such confidential communication in respect of legal proceedings ensuing between the spouses. Hence, this judgement further reinforces the intent of the law and the contents of the provision that confidentiality can only act as a restrain we a mode of privilege for disclosure to third parties."
Nehra adds: "However, it cannot be employed as a means to not be held responsible for statements made inter se the spouses and they remain accordingly bound by their own statements made to the spouse. This judgement thus enables a party to remain entitled to hold their spouse accountable to the exchanges made in private. It does create an issue of lack of consent prevailing on account of recordings being made secretively. However, the use of such documents or communication is clearly enabled by the law and hence, rightly upheld."
Also read: Delhi Customs seize man’s Rolex watch upon arrival from Dubai; High Court allows him to retrieve it after paying redemption fine
The Supreme Court observed:
- "Some arguments have been made that permitting such an evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony in matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, defeating the objective of section 122 of the Evidence Act.”
- “We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment.”
The Supreme Court said that the following principles and interpretations can be culled out:
(i) Unlike Section 120 of the Evidence Act, which deals with competency of a husband or a wife to be a witness in a civil or criminal proceeding involving the other, Section 122 of the said Act deals with the admissibility of privileged communications made by a married person to a partner during the subsistence of the marriage.
(ii) Section 122 of the Evidence Act is worded in two parts – one, dealing with ‘compellability’ and the other, dealing with ‘permissibility’. These two parts are separated by a semi-colon, which shows that the two parts are separate and have to be read disjunctively.
(iii) The first part deals with ‘compellability’. Here, if one of the spouses is not willing to disclose the communication made to the other, the latter cannot be compelled by any court, authority or person, which by law is otherwise competent to compel the person to give evidence, to disclose what their married partner communicated to the said spouse during the time when the marriage was subsisting. This is a blanket bar which cannot be relaxed in any situation. This protects the right to privacy between a married couple.
(iv) The second part deals with ‘permissibility’. This is an even greater restriction than the first part. Here, even if one of the spouses is willing to disclose the communication made to him/her, the Court still cannot permit it to be taken as evidence, unless the other spouse who made that communication, or their representative-in-interest, consents to the disclosure of such communication. In other words, without the consent of the spouse who made the communication, the court cannot permit the other spouse to disclose that communication. Another way of looking at it is that if one of the spouses is willing to disclose the communication, then it is not the court that can give consent to the disclosure but it is actually the other spouse who made that communication who can consent to disclosing it.
(v) The second part, relating to ‘permissibility’, is then followed by two exceptions which are – a. proceedings in suits between married persons, b. proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against each other. Therefore, it means that in these two given scenarios, the requirement of taking consent from the other spouse before being permitted to disclose the communication is done away with.
[Ref.: M.C. Verghese vs. T.J. Poonan, (1969) 1 SCC 37]
vi) The provision is neither an absolute bar on any person nor on the communication. It puts a specific and limited bar on a married person from disclosing the communication made to him/her by his/her spouse during the subsistence of a marriage between them.
(vii) If the marriage was subsisting at the time when the communications were made, the bar prescribed by Section 122 of the Evidence Act will operate. The bar to the admissibility in evidence of communications made during marriage attaches at the time when the communication is made and its admissibility will be adjudged in light of the status on the date and not the status at the date when evidence is sought to be given in court.
(viii) The provision applies vis-à-vis a legally wedded wife and not to any other kind of relationship. [Ref.: Shankar vs. State of T.N, (1994) 4 SCC 478]
(ix) The prohibition of disclosure under the Section applies even after the marriage is no longer subsisting, if the “communication”, whose disclosure is sought to be prohibited, is only the one that was made during the subsistence of the marriage.
x) The bar from disclosure under the provision applies to the spouse to whom the communication was made and not to the spouse who made the communication. For example, if X and Y are married, then X cannot disclose what Y told to her and Y cannot disclose what X told to him. But X can disclose what she told to Y and Y can disclose what he told to X.
(xi) Hence, under this Section, it is only the spouses who are barred from disclosing what was said to them by the other spouse. The bar is not on other persons like the family members, kith and kin or third-parties who may have heard or overheard that communication. [Ref.: Appu vs. The State, AIR 1971 Mad 194]
(xii) The bar does not also apply to the communication made to a third party even if the same communication was made to that third party which was made to the spouse. For example, X tells something to spouse Y. X tells the same thing to friend Z. Then Y is barred under thisSection to disclose that communication, but not Z.
xiii) The use of the blanket word “any communication” means that the bar in the Section applies to disclosing all kinds of communication and not just private/confidential communication. The communication may also be oral or written or sign language.
xiv) However, the use of the word “communication”, followed by the phrase “made to him”, denotes that the communication here should not be read as ‘conversation’ or a ‘dialogue’. When communication is made to a person, it would mean that a message or information has been conveyed by one person to the other.
This can be understood by an illustration. Suppose in a trial for the murder of a person ‘Z’, the husband ‘Y’ is being tried as an accused. The wife ‘X’ comes to the witness box to depose about the conversation that happened between X and Y on the day of the crime. X deposes as under:
“On that night, when my husband Y came back home, his clothes were drenched in blood. I was scared to see that. I asked Y, “What happened? Whose blood is this? Did you kill someone?” Y replied back in anger and said, “Z had been troubling me for a long time, so today I killed him.” Shocked to hear this, I further asked “Where is the body? What did you kill him with?” Y replied in a whispering tone and said, “I killed him using a knife and buried the body in the park.” (underlining by Supreme Court)
Supreme Court analyses Article 21
The Supreme Court said that in view of the aforesaid discussion, they firstly observe that Section 122 of the Evidence Act is not assailed in these proceedings. Secondly, under Section 122 of the Act, privileged communication between the spouses is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationships.
However, the exception under Section 122 of the Evidence Act has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court said that when they weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, they do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case.
In fact, Section 122 of the aforesaid Act does not recognise such a right at all. On the other hand, the said Section carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.
The Supreme Court said: “In this regard, we reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is because Section 122 of the Evidence Act recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one’s case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party.”
Also read: Mental cruelty: Wife pressured husband to abandon mother, sister; Delhi High Court grants divorce to husband on this ground
The Supreme Court said that Section 122 of the Evidence Act deals with both compellability as well as permissibility.
The first part deals with compellability while the second part deals with permissibility. The second part dealing with permissibility is followed by two exceptions which are –
- a) proceedings in suits between married persons; and
- b) proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against each other.
Also read: Delhi High Court reprimands wife for filing false Section 498A, 406, 34 cases against husband’s family
The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, the exception has been carved out in Section 122 of the Evidence Act itself to state that such privilege between spousal communication does not extend to a case of litigation between the spouses themselves. In such a situation, the spouses would have the right to prove their respective cases and therefore can let in such evidence which is permitted under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, if one could use the expression “spill the beans”
The Supreme Court reiterated that the content of a common law right may be similar to that of a fundamental right, but they are distinguished by the incidence of their duties on private entities and the State respectively. Therefore, one can foist similar obligations on private bodies and the State, while separating the avenues by which these obligations are enforced.
The Supreme Court said: “In our view, Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not concern itself with right to privacy vis-à-vis spouses which is evident on a reading of the Section and on discerning its plain meaning.”
Supreme Court judgement
The Supreme Court said that the founding rationale for Section 122 of the Evidence Act, as has been recognised by the Law Commission and subsequently by certain High Courts, was to protect the sanctity of marriage and not the right to privacy of the individuals involved.
The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, in adjudicating situations where the privilege under Section 122 of the Act is not granted, as in suits between a couple (an exception provided for in Section 122 itself), the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration, since it is not the rationale under which spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of the Act.”
Judgement: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CR No.1616 of 2020 (O & M) and restore the order passed by the Family Court dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda. The Family Court is directed to take on record the supplementary affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief along with memory card/chip of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD) and transcript of the conversation recorded in memory card/chips of the mobile phones for the relevant period and consider the same as evidence, in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
You may also like
MP News: 1 Lakh Cancer Patients In State By 2025
Nationwide Pro-Palestine protest on Oct 5; Dharna Chowk in Hyderabad
Lando Norris hits back at Max Verstappen with Red Bull blast as Singapore GP drama escalates
Semi-naked body of woman recovered from school in Bengal's Purulia
"All members, president of Devaswom board should resign": Senior BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan amid Sabarimala gold theft row
