Secretly Recording Spouse's Calls Without Consent Violates Right To Privacy, Inadmissible In Divorce Proceedings: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that secretly recording telephone conversations of a spouse without their consent constitutes a breach of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and that such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence in matrimonial proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104]

The Court further held that documents sought to be produced as electronic evidence must also have a clear nexus with the issues in dispute and cannot be received merely because they are available in electronic form.

Dismissing two civil revision petitions, Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:

"With regard to the recordings of conversations between the parties, the trial Court rightly held that recording calls without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of consent, such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence."

Notably the Supreme Court had in 2025 in another matrimonial case in Vibhor Garg v Neha (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694), held that secretly recording a spouse's calls does not violate the fundamental Right to Privacy and is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

The High Court meanwhile held that the remaining documents sought to be introduced by the husband—including medical records, proof of payments, air tickets, photographs and money transfer records—did not advance his plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty. On the contrary, the documents "appear to relate to the cordial and successful marital life shared by the petitioner and the respondent," the Court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by the husband against trial court's order rejecting certain documents sought to be produced by the husband in his divorce petition filed on the ground of cruelty. The husband had moved applications seeking to place on record primary and secondary evidence, including electronic records.

The trial court had rejected the applications, holding that the call recordings were unsupported by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and that there was no clarity as to whether the original mobile phone containing the recordings was available or whether any attempt had been made to obtain the requisite certificate from the competent person or authority.

Before the High Court, the husband contended that the trial court ought to have received the documents and left the questions of admissibility and evidentiary value to be decided at the stage of final adjudication.

He further submitted that the authenticity of the call and voice recordings had been verified by Truth Labs and that the recordings had been produced before the trial court in a sealed cover. With respect to the remaining documents, it was argued that several had been downloaded directly from the websites of banks and credit card issuers and that the petitioner was prepared to establish their authenticity by accessing the original accounts before the trial court.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court first upheld the trial court's finding that the secretly recorded conversations were inadmissible, holding that recording a spouse's telephone conversations without consent infringes the constitutional right to privacy.

The Court then examined the remaining documents sought to be produced, noting that they consisted largely of medical records, payment proofs, travel tickets from the United States to India, photographs, expenditure relating to trips, and money transfer records.

The Court observed that it was "not able to understand how these documents would assist the petitioner in proving the allegation of cruelty." Instead, they appeared to depict a "cordial and successful marital life" between the parties. It further observed that "as a husband-petitioner, it is the petitioner's responsibility to incur expenses for the wife-respondent while they are leading a normal married life together."

Holding that the trial court had rightly rejected the applications and that the documents sought to be produced did not strengthen the husband's case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed both revision petitions.

Case Title: K v. I

Case Nos.: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025

Appearance: not recorded in the order

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104