'Privacy Must Yield To Fair Trial': Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Husband To Produce Wife's Call Recordings, WhatsApp Chats In Divorce Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court order allowing a husband to produce the call recordings and WhatsApp chats of his wife in their divorce proceedings.

While rejecting the objections of the wife on the ground of violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench of Justice Sachin Singh Rajput made it clear that the 'right to privacy' being a personal right must yield to the 'right to a fair trial' which impacts public justice. In the words of the Judge –

“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. The cause of public justice would suffer if the opportunity of 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, which says that evidence would be admissible, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible under Evidence Act.”

The case traces its origin from a divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the course of such proceeding, the husband filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to take the mobile recording of the conversation and WhatsApp chat made between the wife, her relatives and other persons on record.

Notwithstanding the objection filed by the wife against such application, the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur 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. Being aggrieved, the wife filed this writ petition impugning the said order.

In order to decide whether the said call recordings and WhatsApp chats can be taken into record for deciding the impending divorce case, the Court resorted to a collaborative interpretation of Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ('the 1984 Act') and Section 122 of the Evidence Act. It observed–

“It is worthwhile to mention here that Section 14 of the Act of 1984 is a special legislation by virtue of which, the strict principles of admissibility of evidence as provided under the Evidence Act have been diluted. Now if a cumulative reading of Sections 14 and 20 of the Act of 1984 is made, restricted application of the provisions of the Evidence Act qua the documentary evidence which includes electronic evidence, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible, appears at the surface…To say that a party would be precluded from placing such documents on record and/or such documents can be refused to be exhibited unless they are proved as per Evidence Act, seems to run contrary to the object of Section 14 of the Act of 1984.”

Justice Rajput then referred to the landmark ruling in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1972) in which the Apex Court allowed the material obtained by impermissible or illegal means to be admitted in evidence even in a case where strict rules of evidence were applicable, unlike the present case which stands on the bedrock of Section 14 of the 1984 Act which grants deviation from strict evidentiary rules.

Further referring to the judgments in Sharda v. Dharampal (2003) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Court held that it is clear as “broad-day-light” that though the right to privacy has been given the recognition of fundamental right, yet it is not absolute. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion–

“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… 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 constitution of Family Courts may be rendered meaningless. Therefore, the test of admissibility would only be the relevance. Accordingly, fundamental considerations of fair trial and public justice would warrant that evidence be received if it is relevant, regardless of how it is collected.”

Lastly, placing reliance upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694, the Court held that Section 122 of the Evidence Act aims at protecting the sanctity of marriage and not at upholding the right to privacy of spouse(s). Therefore, it found no error in the impugned Family Court order, which was duly upheld.

Case Title: MTD v. VD

Case No: WP227 No. 158 of 2025

Date of Judgment: February 11, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kesharwani and Mr. Swapnil Keshari, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Pushp Gupta, Advocate