The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a Family Court’s ruling permitting the submission of WhatsApp conversations and call logs in a pending divorce case, noting that the litigating party’s right to introduce relevant evidence in matrimonial disputes must take precedence over the fundamental right to privacy.
In respect of the above, while acknowledging that the right to privacy is a basic right, it is subject to exceptions, limitations, and reasonable constraints, Single Bench of Justice Sachin Singh Rajput stated that,
“The litigating party certainly has a right to privacy but that right must yield to the right of an opposing party to bring evidence it considers relevant to court, to prove its case. It is a settled concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before a Court of law. 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 said observation has been given by Bench while affirming the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, by which application of husband as filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC has been allowed and thus thereby, dismissed the instant petition filed by Smt. Manjari Tiwari (Dubey).
While hearing the petition, the High Court referred to the provisions of Family Courts Act, 1984 and ruled that Section 14 provides that Family Court can accept any evidence if it helps in resolving the dispute, even if it is strictly not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Further, the Court also reproduced Section 20 of the above Act in the following terms,
“The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
Besides this, the Court also took note of Section 122 of Indian Evidence Act, which deals with communication during marriage.
Having regard to the aforesaid provisions, the Court ruled that Section 14 provides for an exception to the general rule of evidence regarding admissibility of statements which the Family Court considers necessary to deal effectually with a matrimonial dispute, and that such a provision was made keeping in view the nature of cases dealt with by the Family Courts.
“………..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. The only guiding factor for a Family Court is that in its opinion such evidence would assist it to deal with the matrimonial dispute effectually and effectively. These two provisions further indicate that it would be within the absolute power and authority of the Family Court either to accept or discard any particular evidence in finally adjudicating the matrimonial dispute. 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……”
According to the facts of the case, the husband (respondent) filed application under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking decree of divorce against her wife (petitioner).
During the pendency of divorce proceedings between the parties, the husband had filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC before the Trial Court for taking mobile recordings of the conversation and WhatsApp chat made between the petitioner and her relatives and other persons on record.
The petitioner/wife filed objection on the application and submitted that the respondent was a suspicious man and that the WhatsApp chat and phone recording that the respondent wanted to have recorded were obtained unlawfully by hijacking her phone, she prayed for the rejection of the application.
The Family Court allowed the application, holding that the said records might aid in deciding the outcome of divorce.
The Court emphasized that,
“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. It is to be borne in mind that Family Courts have been established to deal with matters that are essentially sensitive, personal disputes relating to dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights, legitimacy of children, guardianship, custody, and access to minors; which matters, by the very nature of the relationship from which they arise, involve issues that are private, personal and involve intimacies. It is easily foreseeable therefore, that in most cases that come before the Family Court, the evidence sought to be marshaled would relate to the private affairs of the litigating parties. If 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.”
The wife challenged the findings of the Family Court in the instant writ petition before the High Court.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the documents sought to be brought on record are not admissible in evidence as they were obtained by fraud and without her consent, and that the respondent violated the petitioner’s right to privacy and, also her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as provided under Article 21.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that merely allowing the application by the Family Court for production of documents cannot be prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.
He further submitted that the certificate given by respondent under Section 65-B of Evidence Act shows that the photographs, conversations and WhatsApp chats sought to be brought on record are in its original form without any tampering.
In support of the argument, he lastly contended that merely because the documents were obtained by him without the consent of the petitioner, thus, the same cannot be construed to be an invasion on her privacy.
Finally, the Court held that the Family Court was fully justified in allowing the application of the husband for bringing the relevant documents on record for adjudication, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case: Smt. Manjari Tiwari (Dubey) vs Vaibhav Dubey
Date of Order: 11.02.2026
See the Order: Smt. Manjari Tiwari (Dubey) vs Vaibhav Dubey
