Secret call recordings allowed in divorce cases
A two-judge bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, said, '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.'
Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana HC Judge Justice Lisa Gill had held that recording a wife's telephonic conversations or snooping on her amounted to 'clear breach of privacy' of her fundamental right and thereby cannot be admitted as evidence before a Family Court during the matrimonial proceedings or case.
Before the HC verdict, a Family Court in Bathinda had allowed a husband to rely on certain recordings of phone calls against his wife to support claims of cruelty.
Later, the woman challenged this in the HC, saying that the recordings were made by her husband without her knowledge or consent and violated her fundamental right to privacy. The HC accepted the wife's plea and ruled the evidence inadmissible, stating that surreptitious recording amounted to a clear breach of privacy and was legally unjustified.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court refuses to entertain govt. appeal filed after 381 days against acquittal of six persons for insulting Scheduled Caste person
Stating that there is a clear bar in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to entertain an appeal beyond 180 days after the pronouncement of verdict by trial courts, the High Court of Karnataka has refused to entertain an appeal filed by the State government after 381 days. '...the framers of legislation have made a proviso wherein there is a total bar for entertaining the appeal after 180 days. Therefore, in view of the statutory bar, the delay of 381 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned,' the court said. Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by the State government against the September 7, 2023 verdict of a sessions court in Yadgiri district, acquitting six persons from the charges of insulting a member of the SC community in public view and other offences alleged to have been committed in 2014. The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) had argued that taking away the right of appeal only on the ground of technicality would be harsh in a given case and substantial justice would be denied to a complainant only on the technical ground of limitation of 180 days. However, the court pointed out that Section 14-A(2) of the 1989 Act provides only 90 days to file an appeal before the High Court against the judgement of the trial courts while granting liberty to the HC to condone the delay, after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it [HC] is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 90 days. As a provision to Section 4(3) of the Act makes it clear that 'no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of 180 days', the court said that it has no jurisdiction in law to entertain the appeal after 180 days. Meanwhile, the court said that it would be open for the SPP to bring to the notice of the State legislature on requirement to amend the statute, if need be, to provide a remedy for a litigant in such circumstances, where the delay occurs on account of the reasons that are not attributable to a negligent litigant, but on account of bonafide reasons.
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Quashes Age Fraud Case On Lakshya Sen
Last Updated: The Supreme Court dismissed an FIR against badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family, and coach for birth certificate forgery, citing lack of evidence and abuse of process. The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against national badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family members, and coach in a case of birth certificate forgery on Monday (July 28). A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar observed that the allegations against Sen had already been debunked by competent authorities, adding that the complaintant sought to reopen the query without any substantial fresh evidence. The court declared the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen an abuse of the process. 'The appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. 'To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice." Sen was said to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi, in 2016 under an investigation by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). 'The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea against a Karnataka High Court order dated February 19 rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach. Complainant M G Nagaraj had alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were forged and that their parents, Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, and coach U Vimal Kumar, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, were involved. The alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government benefits. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
Saying 'I Love You' Not Sex Harassment Without Proven Intent: Chhattisgarh High Court
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a youth accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating that merely saying "I love you" does not amount to sexual harassment unless clear sexual intent is established. A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay S Agarwal upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the state government, observing that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence to prove either the accused's intent or the age of the victim. The case originated from the Kurud police station area of Dhamtari district, where a 15-year-old schoolgirl had alleged that while she was returning home, the accused saw her and said "I love you." She also claimed that the youth had harassed her earlier on multiple occasions. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 8 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. However, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence, leading the state government to challenge the acquittal in the High Court. During the hearing, the High Court noted that neither the testimony of the victim nor that of her friends demonstrated any sexual intent behind the accused's actions. The court further highlighted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, rendering the application of the SC/ST Act baseless. Justice Agarwal emphasised that an isolated instance of saying "I love you," without repeated contact or suggestive behaviour, does not fulfil the legal criteria for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Attorney General for India vs Satish (2021), the court underscored that a sexual overture must be supported by clear intent for it to fall under the purview of sexual harassment as defined in Section 7 of the Act. The court also raised concerns over the failure to verify the victim's age and described the investigation as inadequate and careless. Concluding that there was no sufficient evidence to convict the youth, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal and dismissed the state's appeal.
