The Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision dated 12 November 2021 that upheld the spousal right to privacy in marital conversations. The case deals with Section 122 of the Evidence Act and a balancing act with the reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 21.
The case arose from a divorce petition filed by husband against wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Bathinda Family Court in 2017. To substantiate allegations of cruelty, the husband produced a CD containing recorded telephonic conversation between the parties, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The same was admitted by the Family Court. The Family Court admitted the recordings in evidence. The wife, aggrieved by this order, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that admitting the said CD, which was recorded without the consent of the wife, is an infringement of her right to privacy.
The High Court upheld her objection, holding that Section 122 of the Evidence Act protected confidential spousal communications from disclosure, and the Family Court erred in admitting such evidence, which was obtained without consent. Reliance was placed on precedents such as Deepinder Singh Mann v. Ranjit Kaur[1] and Smt. Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari v. Napaphander Rayala[2].
Before the Supreme Court, Advocate-on-Record Ankit Swarup, appearing for the petitioner-husband, argued that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced with other rights and values. The petitioner also referred to Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, emphasizing that these provisions were enacted to ensure a fair trial and aid in the discovery of truth in matrimonial disputes.
The Division Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the contention that allowing such evidence would defeat the purpose of Section 122 of the Evidence Act by undermining domestic harmony and encouraging snooping between spouses. The Court observed that where a marriage has deteriorated to the extent that spouses resort to actively snooping on each other, it is itself indicative of a fractured relationship and a breakdown of mutual trust.
The Supreme Court order, setting aside the High Court judgement, instructed the Family Court to proceed with the case after taking judicial note of the recorded conversations.
[1] 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 4826
[2] AIR 2008 AP 98
Awaiting formal order; more details will follow.