In Vibhor Garg v. Neha, the husband who was forbidden from taping telephonic conversations with his wife has submitted an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appellant has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that recording his wife’s telephone conversations without her consent is a breach of her right to privacy. The transcripts of such talks were also found to be inadmissible as evidence.
The wife was served with a notice by a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BV Nagarathna. In the following three weeks, she is expected to respond. Although a family court is not bound by rigorous rules of evidence, it is not free to accept a CD containing covert recordings of the wife’s telephone conversation in evidence, according to Justice Lisa Gill of the High Court. To provide some context, the woman had challenged a family court ruling permitting the husband to copy telephonic recordings of their discussions. The husband, on the other hand, had hoped for a quick resolution to his divorce case. The major question before the High Court was whether the family court’s order violated the wife’s fundamental right to privacy.
The spouse said that in this day and age of modern technology, such proof may be recorded utilizing modern technology and devices. He did emphasize, however, that the court should exercise caution before relying on such material.
Advocate-On-Record was used to file the appeal. According to Ankit Swarup, the recorded discussion between the parties is another technique of adducing evidence and reproducing the events of the matrimonial house before the Court, similar to the evidence of the parties’ spoken testimony. As a result, it was contended that the appellant would be unsuccessful in obtaining a divorce decision from the Family Court without showing the component of cruelty.
The wife claimed that CDs containing transcripts of the discussions infringed on her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution because the conversations were taped without her knowledge or consent.
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act has been repealed by the learned Family Court, since if a recording is made on a mobile phone, CDs of the recording and transcripts of the recording, in any case, cannot be admitted as evidence. She had also claimed that Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not being followed.