The Supreme Court on Monday held that secretly recorded conversations of spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial cases.
The case was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court—with Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.
This verdict overturns a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that had shielded such recordings under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
Section 122: Communication During Marriage
Section 122 of the Evidence Act protects confidential marital communications by stating:
“No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married.”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had interpreted this provision to bar the use of surreptitious recordings, deeming them a violation of the spouse’s privacy and fundamental rights.
Case Facts
Original Order: A Family Court in Bathinda allowed a husband to submit a compact disc containing clandestine phone-call recordings with his wife to substantiate allegations of cruelty.
High Court Appeal: The wife challenged this ruling, arguing that the recordings, obtained without her consent, breached her right to privacy.
High Court Decision: The High Court agreed with the wife, striking down the recordings as inadmissible evidence.
Supreme Court’s Rationale
Restoring the Family Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that the very act of one spouse covertly recording the other signals a breakdown of trust and marital harmony. Justice Nagarathna explained:
“If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.”
The bench emphasized that allowing such evidence does not undermine Section 122’s objective; rather, it acknowledges the reality of marital discord when one spouse feels compelled to record conversations in secret.
Implications For Matrimonial Litigation
Evidentiary Value: Recorded conversations may now be admitted to demonstrate cruelty, harassment, or other matrimonial grievances.
Deterrence or Encouragement?: While some fear this ruling could encourage mutual surveillance, the Court rejected those concerns, noting that evidence of snooping merely reflects an already troubled marriage.
Procedure on Remand: The Supreme Court has directed the Family Court to proceed with the trial, duly noting the recorded conversations in its judicial assessment.
Broader Legal Impact
This judgment clarifies the tension between privacy rights and the need for candid evidence in marital disputes. It suggests that:
Privacy vs. Truth: The Court prioritizes the probative worth of recordings over a blanket bar on secret communication.
Marital Trust: A marriage lacking trust may no longer enjoy absolute confidentiality protections under Section 122.
Future Applications: Lawyers handling divorce and cruelty petitions may now consider recorded evidence more readily, albeit subject to judicial scrutiny for authenticity and relevance.
Court’s brief order sets a significant precedent, but practitioners and scholars await the full, detailed judgment for guidance on weighing privacy concerns against evidentiary needs in matrimonial cases.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
