Husband moves Supreme Court against order barring secret recording of wife's phone calls

A husband who was barred from recording telephonic conversations with his wife has moved the Supreme Court in appeal (Vibhor Garg v. Neha)..The appellant has approached the apex court against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order which held that recording of telephonic conversations of his wife without her knowledge amounts to infringement of her right to privacy. It was further held that the transcripts of such conversations cannot be accepted as evidence..A Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BV Nagarathna issued notice to the wife. A reply from her is now expected in the next three weeks..Justice Lisa Gill of the High Court had held that though a family court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, it is not at liberty to accept a CD containing secret recordings of the wife's telephonic conversation in evidence."Recording of telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge, is a clear cut infringement of her privacy...it cannot be said that as the Family Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, it is at liberty to accept the CD in evidence which is a clear cut infringement of the right of privacy of the wife," the High Court had said..By way of background, the wife had challenged an order of the family court allowing the husband to reproduce telephonic recordings of their conversations. The husband, on the other hand, had sought an expeditious disposal of his divorce petition.The main issue before the High Court was whether this order of the family court was against the fundamental right to privacy of the wife..In his appeal before the Supreme Court, relying on Section 122 of the Evidence Act, the husband has argued that in divorce proceedings, the communication between the married persons can be disclosed.It was stated that in matrimonial cases involving an allegation of mental cruelty, the "parties are bound to re-create the issues and events which were otherwise confined to the matrimonial home and the bedroom and away from public eye.".The husband contended that in the present age of modern technology, "such evidence can be brought on record using such technology and modern device." However, he added that the "court should be circumspect before relying on such evidence.".The appeal filed through Advocate-On-Record Ankit Swarup stated that the recorded conversation held between the parties is another way of adducing evidence and recreating before the Court the events of the matrimonial home just like the evidence of oral testimony of the parties. Thus, it was argued that without proving the aspect of cruelty, the appellant would be unsuccessful in seeking a decree of divorce from the Family Court..The wife had contended that CDs containing the transcripts of the conversations were in violation of her right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the conversations had been recorded without her knowledge or consent. "The learned Family Court has given a complete go bye to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, because if recording has been done through a mobile phone, CD’s of the recording and transcripts thereof in any case, cannot be accepted as evidence thereof. Moreover, there is non-compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act," she had contended..[Read Order]