Wife's WhatsApp chats can be used as evidence in divorce case even if obtained sans consent: HC

Time of India

7 hours ago

Bhopal: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh high court has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats between spouses, even if obtained without consent.
Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions — particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order.
The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case.
The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery.
To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife's mobile device. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship. The wife filed a separate application seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her Fundamental Right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband's method to obtain the chats breached Information Technology Act.
However, HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence — regardless of admissibility under Indian Evidence Act — if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes.
Justice Shroti emphasized that family courts operate under a special statutory framework designed to simplify rules of evidence in sensitive matrimonial matters. According to the court, this broad power exists specifically because many family-related disputes concern private and intimate details that often cannot be captured through conventional legal mechanisms.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic.
The court also referred to the landmark privacy judgment in K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) case, clarifying that the right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and must be weighed against other constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial.
The court concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 — the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial — the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake.
In this context, the court held that excluding WhatsApp chats solely on grounds of privacy would frustrate the very object of Section 14 of Family Courts Act. The court invoked Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings.
Justice Shroti stressed that courts retain full discretion to discard evidence during final adjudication if it is found unreliable or unauthenticated.
He said that family courts exercise this wide discretion with caution. To prevent misuse, the court suggested safeguards such as strict verification of authenticity, use of in-camera proceedings where necessary, and maintaining decorum and propriety during trial.
Concluding the judgment, the court upheld the family court's April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited. Justice Shroti stated unequivocally that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection, and that the objectives of the Family Courts Act would be undermined if relevance were to be subordinated to privacy.