### 📌 **Background:**
* The appellant-husband Vibhor Garg filed for divorce from his wife Neha under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
* He submitted audio recordings of private conversations (recorded without Neha’s consent) along with a supplementary affidavit and transcripts.
* The Family Court allowed their admission as evidence, citing Section 14 and Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
* Neha challenged the order before the High Court, which ruled in her favor, holding the recordings were a breach of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
* The matter reached the Supreme Court through this civil appeal.
Key Legal Issues:
1. **Whether secretly recorded spousal conversations are admissible as evidence in matrimonial disputes?**
2. **Whether such recordings violate the spouse’s right to privacy under Article 21?**
3. **How to reconcile Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?**
🧩 **Statutory & Judicial Analysis:**
📘 **Section 122, Indian Evidence Act**:
* Prevents disclosure of spousal communication made during marriage *unless*:
* It’s a proceeding between the spouses.
* It’s a criminal case involving one spouse against the other.
* SC clarified that the bar applies only to one spouse testifying about what the other said—not to the use of recordings or third-party witnesses.
#### 📘 **Section 14 & 20, Family Courts Act**:
* Allows the Family Court to take into account any relevant material (even if not admissible under strict rules of evidence).
* Gives the Court overriding powers to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence for a just outcome.
#### 📘 **Section 65B, Evidence Act (Electronic Evidence)**:
* Electronic evidence is admissible if accompanied by a certificate ensuring authenticity and reliability.
* The SC emphasized the importance of proving accuracy, identity, and unaltered chain of custody.
### 🔍 **Judicial Findings:**
#### ✅ *Admissibility Allowed*:
* The SC held that **recordings of conversations between spouses in matrimonial proceedings are not barred under Section 122**, since such cases fall within the exception clause.
* The husband’s action did not violate the Evidence Act or the Family Courts Act.
* Though the wife’s privacy is important, it is not **absolute** and must be balanced with the husband’s **right to fair trial** under Article 21.
#### ⚖️ *Right to Privacy*:
* The Court acknowledged the importance of privacy (citing *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India*), but ruled:
> “The privacy of communication exists between spouses, but it cannot be absolute and must yield to the statutory exception in Section 122 during matrimonial disputes.”
* Snooping or recording without consent may reflect broken trust but cannot by itself invalidate evidence meant to establish cruelty.
### 🛠️ **Guidelines Suggested (Based on Amicus Curiae Submissions):**
The Court accepted the need for cautious evaluation and suggested that:
* The evidence must have a **direct bearing** on the matrimonial issue.
* The **intention** behind the recording must be fair—not meant to harass or defame.
* Courts should ensure **authenticity**, **accuracy**, and **non-tampering**.
* **In-camera proceedings** and **sealed storage** of sensitive material are ideal to protect privacy.
📌 **Conclusion & Ratio Decidendi:**
* The High Court’s decision was set aside.
* The Family Court’s order permitting the recording into evidence was restored.
* The recordings can be relied upon **provided their authenticity is established**, and due procedure is followed (e.g., Section 65B certification).
* The Court emphasized that **fair trial rights and privacy must be harmoniously balanced**, particularly in private disputes like matrimonial cases.
Case: Vibhor Garg vs. Neha
Citation: 2025 INSC 829
Bench: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Date: 14 July 2025