Supreme Court on Secret Spousal Snooping and Evidence Admissibility
Supreme Court Ruling: Secret Recordings Between Spouses as Evidence in Matrimonial Disputes Admissible; expounds on the scope of section 122 of the Evidence Act.
By Karan Bir Singh Sidhu
Retired IAS Officer, Former Special Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab
Writes at the intersection of privacy as a fundamental right, due process, and constitutional morality.
Secret Recordings Between Spouses as Evidence in Matrimonial Disputes
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment on July 14, 2025, in the case of Vibhor Garg v. Neha, establishing that secretly recorded telephonic conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. The decision has significant implications for the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family law matters.
The Case Background
The case originated from a divorce petition filed by Vibhor Garg against his wife Neha under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The husband sought to introduce a compact disc containing secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife to support his allegations of mental cruelty. The Family Court at Bathinda initially allowed the husband to use these recordings as evidence.
However, the wife challenged this decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the recordings were made without her knowledge or consent and violated her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the wife, holding that recording telephonic conversations without consent constituted a "clear breach" of privacy rights and could not be admitted as evidence in Family Court proceedings.
Supreme Court's Reasoning and Judgment
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma overturned the High Court's decision and restored the Family Court's original order allowing the recordings as evidence. The Court's reasoning was multifaceted:
Broken Relationship Indicator: The Court observed that "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." This surveillance behavior was viewed as evidence of marital discord rather than a violation of privacy.
Section 122 Exception: The Court clarified that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects marital communications, contains an explicit exception for legal proceedings between spouses. The spousal privilege under this section cannot be absolute and must be interpreted in light of the exception provided.
Right to Fair Trial: Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the exception under Section 122 must be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to produce relevant evidence and prove one's case against a spouse is fundamental to seeking relief in matrimonial disputes.
Privacy Rights vs. Fair Trial
The Supreme Court explicitly addressed the privacy concerns raised by the wife. Justice Nagarathna stated: "We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all."
The Court distinguished between the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 and the statutory provisions of Section 122, noting that the Evidence Act provision does not engage with the broader constitutional privacy rights. Instead, it recognizes the right to a fair trial, the right to produce relevant evidence, and the right to prove one's case against a spouse.
Legal Framework and Admissibility Standards
The judgment reaffirmed the established legal framework for admitting secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra. The three-pronged test for admissibility includes:
Relevance to the facts in issue
Identification of the speaker(s)
Accuracy of the recording, including safeguards against tampering
The Court emphasized that mere lack of consent does not render such evidence inadmissible.
Family Courts Act Provisions
The judgment also referenced the Family Courts Act, 1984, particularly Sections 14 and 20, which provide Family Courts with broader discretion in admitting evidence. Section 14 allows Family Courts to receive evidence that may assist in effectively dealing with disputes, even if such evidence would not otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Matrimonial Cruelty Context
The case arose in the context of proving mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mental cruelty as a ground for divorce encompasses conduct that causes such mental suffering that it becomes impossible for the petitioner to continue living with the respondent. The Court recognized that in cases of mental cruelty, events usually occur in private and are difficult to prove through conventional means, making digital recordings potentially valuable evidence.
Broader Implications and Criticism
The judgment has drawn both support and criticism. Supporters argue that it ensures access to justice in matrimonial disputes where evidence is often limited to private interactions between spouses. The decision acknowledges the reality of modern technology in family disputes and prevents the absolute application of privacy rights from obstructing the truth-seeking function of courts.
Critics, however, raise concerns about the potential for abuse and the encouragement of domestic surveillance. Legal scholars have pointed out that the ruling may incentivize spying, particularly benefiting the spouse with greater economic leverage or technological literacy. There are also concerns about the potential for such recordings to be part of coercive control patterns, where surveillance itself becomes a form of abuse.
Coercive Control Considerations
Research indicates that domestic surveillance can be a component of coercive control, a pattern of behavior used to dominate and control intimate partners. Studies from India show that approximately 48–71% of women experience some form of coercive control from their spouses. The Supreme Court's judgment, while focusing on evidentiary admissibility, has been critiqued for not adequately considering whether the act of recording itself might constitute a form of abuse.
Constitutional Balance
The judgment reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing constitutional rights in matrimonial law. While the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, the Supreme Court in this case determined that the specific context of matrimonial disputes and the exceptions carved out in evidentiary law justify the admission of secretly recorded conversations.
Future Implications
This ruling sets a significant precedent for how digital evidence will be treated in matrimonial cases across India. It clarifies that:
Spousal privilege under Section 122 is not absolute in matrimonial proceedings
Secret recordings between spouses can be admitted if they meet authenticity and relevance standards
Privacy rights must be balanced against the right to a fair trial in family law matters
Family Courts have broad discretion in admitting evidence that assists in dispute resolution
The judgment also suggests that courts should consider the context and intent behind such recordings, though it does not establish binding procedural safeguards for their admission.
In Summary
The Supreme Court's decision in Vibhor Garg v. Neha represents a pragmatic approach to evidence in modern matrimonial disputes, recognizing that the digital age has transformed how personal relationships are documented and proven in court. While the ruling provides clarity on the admissibility of secret recordings between spouses, it also raises important questions about the balance between privacy, justice, and the potential for abuse in intimate relationships.
The judgment underscores the evolving nature of family law in India and the courts' willingness to adapt traditional legal principles to contemporary realities. However, it also highlights the need for careful consideration of the broader implications of such decisions on domestic relationships and the protection of vulnerable parties in matrimonial disputes.