Secretly Recorded Calls Admissible as Evidence in Matrimonial Disputes: SC

A two-judge bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict, which had held that such recordings were protected under Section 122 of the Evidence Act and thus inadmissible. Restoring the trial court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the family court to proceed with the case, taking judicial notice of the recorded conversations.

Section 122 of the Evidence Act provides that “no person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.” In the underlying case, a Family Court in Bathinda had allowed the husband to rely on a compact disc of recorded phone calls with his wife to support his cruelty claim. The wife appealed, arguing that the recordings, made without her knowledge or consent, violated her fundamental right to privacy.

The High Court sided with the wife and ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that surreptitious recording breached privacy and was legally unjustified. However, Justice Nagarathna, writing for the Supreme Court bench, rejected the High Court’s reasoning:

“Some have argued that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony by encouraging spouses to snoop on each other, thereby undermining the objective of Section 122. We do not find this argument tenable. If a marriage has deteriorated to the point where spouses are actively eavesdropping on one another, that in itself is a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust,” she observed.