The Supreme Court held that covertly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in divorce proceedings under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits disclosure of marital communications in suits between married persons. The Court clarified that such evidence does not violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, as Section 122’s exception prioritizes fair trial rights over spousal privacy in matrimonial disputes. The ruling emphasized that Family Courts can admit such evidence if it meets the relevance, authenticity, and accuracy standards under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, which govern electronic records. The judgment harmonized the Evidence Act’s provisions with the Family Courts Act, 1984, ensuring procedural flexibility in matrimonial cases.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a dispute between Vibhor Garg (appellant-husband) and Neha (respondent-wife) regarding the admissibility of covertly recorded conversations in their divorce proceedings. The couple married on 20 February 2009 and had a daughter on 11 May 2011. Due to marital discord, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Bathinda, on 7 July 2017. During the trial, the husband sought to submit supplementary evidence—memory cards, a CD, and transcripts of recorded conversations between them from 2010 and 2016—to support his case. The wife objected, arguing that the recordings violated her right to privacy and were inadmissible under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which protects spousal communications. The Family Court allowed the evidence, citing Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which relaxes strict evidence rules in matrimonial disputes. However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed this decision, holding that surreptitious recordings infringed the wife’s privacy. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, holding that Section 122’s exception for matrimonial suits permits such evidence, balancing privacy concerns with the right to a fair trial. The Court restored the Family Court’s order, allowing the recordings as evidence.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began when Vibhor Garg (appellant-husband) filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Bathinda, on 7 July 2017. During the trial, he sought to introduce supplementary evidence—recorded conversations (memory cards, CD, and transcripts)—to substantiate his claims. The Family Court allowed this evidence on 29 January 2020, relying on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which permits flexibility in evidence rules. The respondent-wife (Neha) challenged this order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which, in its judgment dated 12 November 2021, set aside the Family Court’s decision, holding that covert recordings violated her right to privacy. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued an interim stay on 12 January 2022, halting further proceedings in the Family Court. On 3 December 2024, the Supreme Court directed the Family Court to continue recording evidence in-camera while keeping the transcripts sealed. After hearing arguments from both parties and amicus curiae Vrinda Grover, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment on 14 July 2025, overturning the High Court’s decision and reinstating the Family Court’s order, thereby permitting the admissibility of the recorded conversations as evidence in the divorce case.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while adjudicating the case. It held that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while protecting spousal communications, contains an express exception for matrimonial suits, allowing disclosure of marital conversations in divorce proceedings. The Court clarified that covertly recorded conversations between spouses do not automatically violate privacy rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the right to a fair trial takes precedence in such disputes. It emphasized that electronic evidence (recordings, transcripts, etc.) is admissible if it meets the authenticity and reliability standards under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that Family Courts enjoy discretion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act to admit evidence beyond strict procedural rules to ensure substantive justice. It rejected the argument that permitting such evidence would encourage marital surveillance, observing that snooping is a symptom, not a cause, of marital breakdown. The judgment also distinguished between horizontal (private) and vertical (State) application of privacy rights, affirming that Section 122 does not create an absolute privacy right between spouses but rather protects marital harmony, which ceases to apply in adversarial litigation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that balancing evidentiary value with privacy concerns is a matter of judicial discretion, and in matrimonial cases, relevant evidence cannot be excluded solely on privacy grounds.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final judgment dated 14 July 2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order that had barred the admissibility of covertly recorded spousal conversations. The Court restored the Family Court’s decision permitting the husband to submit memory cards, CDs, and transcripts of recorded conversations as evidence in the divorce proceedings. It held that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while protecting marital communications, explicitly excludes matrimonial suits from its privilege, enabling spouses to present such evidence in divorce cases. The Court ruled that right to privacy (Article 21) is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial, particularly when the evidence is relevant and credible. It emphasized that electronic evidence must comply with Sections 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act to ensure authenticity. The judgment reaffirmed the Family Court’s discretionary power under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act to admit evidence beyond technical procedural constraints. The Court directed the Family Court, Bathinda, to proceed with the trial, considering the disputed recordings as admissible evidence. No costs were awarded, and the amicus curiae, Ms. Vrinda Grover, was acknowledged for her assistance. The ruling establishes a precedent that covertly recorded marital conversations are permissible in divorce cases, provided they meet evidentiary standards.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vibhor Garg vs. Neha Citation: 2025 INSC 829 Appeal No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21195 of 2021) Date of Judgment:14 July 2025 Bench (Judges): Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Download The Judgement Here