In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife’s private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. The court’s decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce.
The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife’s phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife’s legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice.
The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife’s right to privacy and the husband’s right to a fair trial. It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. “A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,” the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act’s intent.
The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband’s case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife’s phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife’s legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice.
The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife’s right to privacy and the husband’s right to a fair trial. It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. “A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,” the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act’s intent.
The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband’s case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
You may also like
Summon KCR in phone-tapping case, demands MoS Bandi Sanjay
Georgia Kousoulou marries Tommy Mallet as TOWIE stars gush over 'dream' wedding
Hrishikesh Pandey gets nostalgic on International Yoga Day, shares story from his school
It's Heartening To See The Younger Players Taking Responsibility, Says Shami's Childhood Coach Siddiqui
Lions star reveals Andy Farrell fury in dressing room and how squad reacted
