Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Use of Electronic Evidence in Divorce Dispute Despite Privacy Objections

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 122

February 11, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a Family Court order permitting a husband to place mobile call recordings and WhatsApp chats on record in an ongoing divorce proceeding, ruling that relevance, not the method of collection, is the key test for admissibility in matrimonial disputes.

Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed a writ petition filed by the wife challenging the Family Court’s December 12, 2024 order. The lower court had allowed the husband’s application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring electronic records into evidence in a divorce case filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife argued that the electronic material was obtained by hacking her phone without consent and amounted to a violation of her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. She contended that the documents were illegally procured and therefore inadmissible in evidence.

The husband, however, maintained that the electronic records had been accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the Family Court had merely permitted them to be placed on record. He argued that their admissibility and proof would still be subject to scrutiny during trial.

The High Court examined Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which give Family Courts broader discretion in receiving evidence. Section 14 allows a Family Court to accept any report, statement, document or information that may assist in resolving a dispute, whether or not it would otherwise be admissible under the Evidence Act.

The Court observed that this provision was enacted keeping in mind the sensitive and personal nature of matrimonial disputes. A strict application of technical rules of evidence, it noted, would defeat the purpose of Family Courts.

Addressing the privacy argument, the Court referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and Sharda v. Dharampal, where the apex court held that privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against competing rights in matrimonial disputes.

The High Court also relied on R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Supreme Court ruled that even evidence obtained through improper or illegal means may be admissible if relevant and genuine. More recently, in Vibhor Garg v. Neha, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which protects spousal communications, is aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage rather than safeguarding privacy in disputes between spouses.

The High Court emphasized that while privacy is a protected right under Article 21, it is not absolute. In matrimonial litigation, the right to a fair trial and the opportunity to present relevant evidence carry significant weight. Denying a party the chance to present relevant material at the threshold stage could undermine the broader goal of public justice.

The Court noted that Family Courts deal with inherently private matters such as divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody and legitimacy. In such cases, evidence will often touch upon personal communications and private conduct. If privacy objections were allowed to override Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the provision itself would become ineffective.

Concluding that the Family Court’s decision to allow the electronic evidence on record was justified, the High Court dismissed the wife’s petition and affirmed the impugned order.

Case Reference : WP227 No. 158 of 2025, Smt. Manjari Tiwari (Dubey) v. Vaibhav Dubey; Counsels: For the Petitioner : Shri Hemant Kesharwani and Shri Swapnil Keshari, Advocates; For the Respondent : Shri B.P. Sharma and Shri Pushp Gupta, Advocates.