Privacy versus fair trial: Chhattisgarh High Court allows call recordings, chats on WhatsApp as evidence in divorce case

“It is pertinent to note that while the right to privacy is essentially a personal right, the right to fair trial has wider ramifications and impacts public justice, which is a larger cause,” it added.

What was the case?

• The husband filed an application seeking a decree of divorce against the wife.
• During the pendency of the said divorce application, the husband filed another application for taking the mobile recording of conversations and WhatsApp chats between the wife, her relatives and other persons on record.
• His wife objected to the said application, stating that her husband was a man of suspicious mindset and that the call recording and the WhatsApp chat sought to be brought on record by him were obtained through illegal means by hacking her mobile.
• The family court on December 12, 2024, allowed the application of the husband, holding that the documents sought to be brought on record may be helpful in deciding the application for divorce.
• Against this order of the family court, the wife approached the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel for the wife argued that the family court has erred in not considering the fact that the documents obtained and sought to be produced in the pending divorce case by the husband are not admissible in evidence.
• On the other hand, the counsel for the husband submitted that after the husband’s application was allowed, the documents sought to be brought on record have been exhibited without there being any objection from the wife as to the admissibility of the same, and therefore it cannot be argued at this stage the family court has committed an error of law.

Court’s ruling

• Even though the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right, the same is not absolute and is subject to exceptions and limitations and reasonable restrictions.
• The cause of public justice would suffer if the opportunity of a fair trial is denied by shutting out evidence that a litigating party may wish to lead, at the very threshold.
• The specific statutory provision contained in Section 14 of Family Courts Act says that evidence would be admissible, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible under the Evidence Act.
• If it were to be held that evidence sought to be adduced before a family court should be excluded based on an objection of breach of privacy right, then the provisions of Section 14 would be rendered nugatory and dead letter.
• It is to be borne in mind that family courts have been established to deal with matters that are essentially sensitive, personal disputes relating to dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights, legitimacy of children, guardianship, custody, and access to minors; which matters, by the very nature of the relationship from which they arise, involve issues that are private, personal and involve intimacies.
• It is easily foreseeable therefore, that in most cases that come before the family court, the evidence sought to be marshalled would relate to the private affairs of the litigating parties.
• If Section 14 is held not to apply in its full expanse to evidence that impinges on a person’s right to privacy, then not only of Section 14, but the very object of the constitution of family courts may be rendered meaningless. Therefore, the test of admissibility would only be the relevance.