Case title:
SMT ANJALI SHARMA Versus RAMAN UPADHYAY
Date of Order:
16th June 2025
Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashish Shroti
Parties:
Smt Anjali Sharma versus Raman Upadhyay
SUBJECT
In a landmark ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case. The husband had submitted auto-forwarded chats from his wife’s phone to support claims of her alleged affair, which she contested as a privacy violation. The Court held that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, such evidence can be considered if it aids in resolving the dispute. It highlighted the importance of context and relevance in evaluating digital communications. Crucially, the Court clarified that admitting evidence doesn't mean accepting it as truth, leaving that to the Family Court’s final judgment.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- This section provides the legal grounds for divorce between Hindu spouses.
- It includes various reasons such as cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion, mental disorder, and others under which either spouse can seek dissolution of the marriage through a court decree.
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act
- This section allows Family Courts to receive and consider any evidence, including inadmissible evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, if it is relevant and helps in resolving the dispute.
- It grants the court flexibility to ensure effective adjudication in sensitive family matters.
OVERVIEW
- A Hindu couple married in Gwalior on December 1, 2016, and a baby girl was born on October 11, 2017. The husband filed a suit for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and adultery.
- He argued that the wife's WhatsApp chats with a third person were automatically forwarded to his phone through a special application installed on her phone, indicating an extramarital affair. This evidence supports his claim of adultery.
- The wife denied allegations in a plaint and applied Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for conjugal rights. During the stage of evidence of the suit, the husband sought to exhibit WhatsApp chats, which she objected to.
- Subsequently, the learned Family Court rejected her objection and allowed the husband to do so. The wife filed an instant miscellaneous petition, aggrieved by the court's decision.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether, in a matrimonial dispute, electronic evidence obtained without consent, such as WhatsApp conversations automatically forwarded via an app installed without consent, is admissible under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act?
- Whether the Information Technology Act of 2000's provisions and Article 21 of the Constitution's guarantee of privacy are violated by the unlawful gathering of private digital data?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The wife's counsel argued that her husband's installation of an application without her consent was illegal and infringed on her privacy rights, and that the evidence collected was illegal and inadmissible in evidence, violating Sections 43, 66 & 72 of the Information Technology Act.
- The counsel also relied on various court cases, including Delhi High Court's case of National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms vs. Union of India, Punjab & Haryana High Court's case of Neha Garg vs. Vibhor Garg, Andhra Pradesh High Court's case of Rayala M. Bhuvaneshwari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala, and the Delhi High Court's case of Ram Talreja vs. Smt. Sapna Talreja.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel argued that the husband's WhatsApp chats are considered relevant for establishing the allegation of adultery in this case.
- Furthermore, according to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court is competent to take relevant evidence, even if it's inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Preeti Jain vs. Kunal Jain and the Delhi High Court's decision in Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Even though electronic and other documentary evidence is not strictly admissible under the Evidence Act, Family Courts may still consider it if Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act are read together. Whether the evidence aids in resolving the matrimonial dispute is the primary criterion.
- Acceptance or rejection of such evidence is entirely up to the Court. Nevertheless, it is contrary to the purpose of Section 14 to prevent a party from presenting documents merely because they do not satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act.
- The Supreme Court affirmed that evidence is not excluded based only on the method of acquisition in R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973), allowing the admissibility of a taped conversation obtained illegally. Interestingly, this occurred in a setting with stringent rules of evidence, as opposed to the more lenient guidelines established by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. Later, in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005), this principle was reiterated.
- In the case of Sharda vs. Dharmpal reported in (2003)4 SCC 493 and K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India reported in (2017)10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 but made it clear that this right is not unqualified. Limited invasions of privacy may be allowed by laws such as Section 122 of the Evidence Act and Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. These clauses are regarded as fair and reasonable because their validity isn't being contested. The latter may prevail in cases where fundamental rights clash, such as privacy versus a fair trial.
- Therefore, in certain situations, the right to a fair trial may take precedence over privacy. Furthermore, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act are some such statutory provisions that permit an invasion of the right to privacy.
- Family courts were established to deal with delicate personal issues that inevitably involve private and intimate details, such as guardianship, divorce, and child custody. As a result, evidence in these cases frequently involves personal information. The fundamental goal of Family Courts would be compromised if Section 14 were not widely applied to incorporate such evidence because of privacy concerns. Relevance, not the mode of collection, should be the primary criterion for admissibility. The purpose of enacting Section 14 would be defeated if privacy over pertinent evidence were upheld.
CONCLUSION
The Court concluded that the Family Courts Act's Section 14 was designed to relax the strict rules of evidence in matrimonial cases. This made it possible for courts to accept any relevant evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. The guiding test is whether or not such evidence helps resolves the conflict. Its admission does not, however, imply reliance or acceptance as proof; the Family Court retains full discretion to accept, reject, or take into consideration such evidence during final adjudication.
The opposing side may challenge its accuracy through cross-examination. Importantly, admission does not absolve the collector of potential criminal or civil liability, and such evidence must be carefully scrutinized to prevent misuse or manipulation.
