LexVIBHOR GARG versus NEHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 611 : 2025 INSC 829 Vibhor Garg v. Neha (Civil Appeal No. 9489 of 2025) 14 July 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence; whether in light of the Evidence Act and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a conversation between spouses can be permitted to be given in evidence in a proceeding for divorce; whether such a recorded evidence should be disallowed solely on the ground that it is violative of the privacy of one of the spouses; and as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, declining permission to the husband to corroborate his evidence in the form of recording on his mobile phone and by means of a compact disc (CD) and transcription of the same containing the communication made by the wife to the husband in order to prove his case for seeking divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.122 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Divorce – Secretly recorded telephonic conversation of spouse – Admissibility in evidence – Right to Privacy – Husband sought permission to submit his supplementary affidavit by way of examination-in-chief along with memory cards/chips of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD) and transcript of conversations recorded in memory cards/ chips – Family Court allowed the application – However, in the revision petition by the wife, the High Court held that the CD cannot be accepted in view of the right to privacy of the wife – Correctness: Held: Order passed by the High Court set aside and that by the Family Court restored – Three-fold test of relevance, * Author 612 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports identification and accuracy has to be satisfied before a Court admits a recorded conversation in evidence – The fact that the conversation was recorded without the consent and knowledge of the person speaking is not a prohibition on the admissibility of the evidence – Husband would have ordinarily been barred from disclosing any form of communication that was disclosed by the wife to him by virtue of being a privileged communication u/s.122 of the Evidence Act, however due to the exception provided in that Section, the bar on the disclosure of such communication is lifted since the communication sought to be disclosed is in a divorce proceeding between the husband and the wife – Thus, such privileged communication is not barred from being disclosed and brought before the Court and the objection taken by the wife with respect to s.122 is not acceptable – Adverting to s.14 of the F.C. Act is not required in the instant facts when the Evidence Act itself permits such a communication to be admitted in evidence by way of an exception – Furthermore, the exception u/s.122 has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Art.21 – When the respective rights of the parties in a trial are weighed within the parameters of s.122, there is no breach of right to privacy – Thus, as per procedure established by law, s.122 does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged u/Art.21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right because s.122 recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one’s case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party – Rationale for s.122 was to protect the sanctity of marriage and not the right to privacy of the individuals involved. [Paras 9.5, 10, 10.2, 12, 12.6, 13] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.122 – Communications during marriage – Rule of privilege protecting disclosure of all communications between persons married to one another made during marriage, except in certain cases, i.e., in litigation between themselves – Principles and interpretations – Stated. [Para 8.8] Case Law Cited M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan [1969] 2 SCR 692 : (1969) 1 SCC 37; Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. (1954) 1 SCC 284; Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra [1967] 1 SCR 720 : AIR 1968 SC 147; Shankar v. State of T.N [1994] 3 SCR 298 : (1994) 4 SCC 478; R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCR [2025] 7 S.C.R. 613 Vibhor Garg v. Neha 417 : (1973) 1 SCC 471; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1; Kaushal Kishor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.