Latest news with #FamilyCourtsAct
News18
9 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Fair Trial Over Privacy: HC Says Illegally Collected WhatsApp Chat Admissible In Matrimonial Dispute
Last Updated: The court said right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial when the two are in conflict, particularly in family law matters where Section 14 relaxes rules of evidence The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that private WhatsApp chats, even if obtained without consent or collected through illegitimate means, are admissible in evidence before Family Courts under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Single Bench of Justice Ashish Shroti upholding a Family Court's order permitting a husband to produce WhatsApp chats of his wife to substantiate allegations of adultery, ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial when the two are in conflict, particularly in family law matters where Section 14 specifically relaxes the strict rules of evidence. The case arose from a petition filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that allowed her husband to rely on WhatsApp conversations she had with a third person. The husband claimed that he had installed an application on his wife's mobile phone which automatically forwarded her chats to his device. He sought to rely on these chats to establish that the wife was involved in an extramarital affair. Opposing this, the wife contended that the chats were obtained without her knowledge or consent, amounting to a gross invasion of her right to privacy. Her counsel argued that such evidence, being illegally collected, was inadmissible and the Family Court erred in admitting it. The Single Judge, after examining the matter, upheld the Family Court's decision. Referring to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, he held that the provision is designed to relax the rigid technicalities of the Indian Evidence Act in family law proceedings. Under Section 14, a Family Court may receive any evidence that, in its opinion, would assist in effectively resolving the dispute, regardless of how it was obtained or whether it would be otherwise admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Quoting from his own order, the judge stated, 'Since no fundamental right under our Constitution is absolute, in the event of conflict between two fundamental rights, as in this case, a contest between the right to privacy and the right to fair trial—both of which arise under Article 21—the right to privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial." The Bench emphasised that Family Courts, by legislative design, are not bound by strict rules of evidence, and the guiding factor for admitting evidence must be its relevance and its potential to assist the court in resolving the matrimonial dispute. On Right to Privacy While acknowledging the wife's right to privacy, the Court held that such a right is not absolute. Relying on the landmark judgments of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003), the Court reiterated that privacy can be lawfully curtailed where competing interests, such as fair trial and public justice, are at stake. It added, 'Section 14 of Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act are some such statutory provisions which permit invasion into the right to privacy." The Court warned, however, that merely admitting such evidence does not equate to proving the fact in issue. It stressed that illegally collected evidence must be treated with caution and scrutiny to rule out the possibility of fabrication or tampering. Sukriti Mishra Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. First Published:
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
MP ranks eighth in marital disputes, 7th in pendency nationwide
Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh ranks eighth in the country in disputes related to marriage and family affairs, according to data tabled by the Union govt in the Rajya Sabha. Surprisingly, states smaller in population like Kerala, Haryana, Gujarat, and Punjab have recorded more marital disputes than MP in recent years. As per the figures shared, 7,106 family-related cases were registered in Madhya Pradesh in 2023, 2024 and 2025 (as of Feb 28).The Union govt stated in Rajya Sabha on April 3 the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for establishment of family courts by the state govts in consultation with their respective high courts to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family govt also accepted that in family courts, delays in proceedings exacerbate tensions and prolong emotional stress, hindering timely dispute resolution. Enforcing decisions on child custody, visitation rights and financial support remains challenging, despite court rulings, leading to continued conflict and the requirement for travel to another city for court appearances imposes significant logistical and financial burdens, especially for families already under strain. It is also important to note that counsellors play a vital role in providing advice and guidance, but their effectiveness depends on proper training and capacity family courts necessitates providing sufficient infrastructure and specialized judges with adequate training. Sensitizing judges, court staff, and stakeholders, along with gender sensitivity training, is imperative to ensure fair treatment, reduce bias, and protect the rights of all parties, particularly the appointment of lady judges and counsellors could further enhance the system's effectiveness. The govt has brought these issues to the attention of the States/High Courts by addressing communications at the level of law and justice minister to the chief ministers of states/UTs and the chief justices of all high courts, the govt has the third highest number of functional family courts and was seventh highest in pending cases. The govt stated it has taken several initiatives to provide an ecosystem for faster disposal of cases by the judiciary. National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms was set up in August, 2011 with the twin objectives of increasing access by reducing delays and arrears in the system and enhancing accountability through structural changes and by setting performance standards and capacities. The mission has been pursuing a coordinated approach for phased liquidation of arrears and pendency in judicial administration, which, inter-alia, involves better infrastructure for courts including computerization, increase in sanctioned strength of District and Subordinate Courts, policy and legislative measures in the areas prone to excessive litigation and re-engineering of court procedure for quick disposal of cases and emphasis on human resource development.
Express Tribune
02-03-2025
- Express Tribune
Woman sues 'rapist' for child support
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed a trial court to seek evidence from a woman to substantiate her claim that a certain individual is the biological father of her child conceived after her alleged rape. A single-member bench of the LHC comprising Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad allowed a petition filed by a Muhammad Afzal against the verdict of a trial court. According to an FIR on March 4, 2020 for offences under section 376, 109 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Maryam Zahid was allegedly raped by Afzal. As a result of the rape, Maryam conceived and ultimately gave birth to a female child. Later, a suit was filed on behalf of the child for recovery of maintenance allowance from Afzal. According to the suit, the child being the biological daughter of Afzal was entitled to get an allowance. Muhammad Afzal contested the suit by filing a written statement, negating the version that he was the biological father of the child. However, the trial court decreed in the respondent minor's favor. When Afzal failed to pay the interim maintenance allowance, his defense was struck off and the suit was decreed by awarding maintenance allowance to the minor at the rate of Rs3,000 per month. Muhammad Afzal later challenged the trial court's order in the LHC, which allowed his petition. In his order, Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad noted that this was not a case of recovery of maintenance allowance simpliciter. He noted that the contention of Maryam Zahid in the plaint was that as a result of rape she conceived the minor, who being the biological daughter of the present petitioner is entitled to get maintenance allowance. The verdict said that in case of a legitimate child, the mother institutes a suit under the Family Courts Act, 1964 or approaches the chairman of the concerned union council in the light of Section 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for recovery of maintenance allowance. The court then fixes an interim maintenance allowance as a temporary arrangement and on failure of the defendant/father to pay interim maintenance the court strikes off his defence and decrees the suit straightaway under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964. "But in the case where a woman claims maintenance for her child against the biological father, who denies the version, the woman would first need to establish, through trustworthy evidence, that the defendant is indeed the biological father of the child. "The burden of proving that the defendant [Afzal] is the biological father of the child lies on the woman who claims the maintenance," it said. The LHC said the trial court erred in law by granting maintenance for the child without first ensuring, through the proper process of evidence, that the child is indeed the biological offspring of the petitioner.
