Supreme Court Clarifies: Secretly Recorded Spousal Calls Are Admissible Evidence in Divorce Battles

The Supreme Court of India has decided that secretly recorded phone calls between spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings, in a landmark decision that combines privacy, marital law and evolving surveillance technologies.

This landmark ruling, rendered on July 14, 2025, by a bench consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, has sparked discussion in the legal and public spheres.

The ruling came in the case of Vibhor Garg v. Neha (SLP (C) No. 21195 of 2021). In this matrimonial dispute, the husband had submitted audio recordings of telephonic conversations with his wife which he had secretly recorded over the years to support his claims of mental cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While the Family Court in Bathinda admitted the recordings as relevant evidence, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside that order, holding that the husband’s act of secretly recording his wife’s conversations amounted to a violation of her right to privacy. This divergence in judicial opinion brought the matter before the Supreme Court of India, raising a crucial legal question:

Can a spouse secretly record conversations and later use them in court as evidence against the other?

The Verdict: Privacy Isn’t a Trump Card

The Supreme Court, in its thorough judgment, has set aside the decision of the High Court and restored the ruling of the Family Court, noting that actual and authenticated certified tapes, although recorded secretly, are admissible evidence in legal battles exclusively between married partners.

The Court emphasized that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which generally bars revealing private communications between spouses, has a significant exception when the legal conflict involves the husband and wife. Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated:

“There is no legal bar on admitting such evidence when it is crucial to determining the truth in a case between spouses. The right to privacy, while fundamental, is not absolute.”

The court clarified that the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (the new Evidence Act), which replaces the Evidence Act, retains the same exception in Section 121, reaffirming that spousal privilege does not supersede the right to a fair adjudication in family disputes.

Striking the Equilibrium: Privacy vs. Procedural Fairness

Referencing the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the bench acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21. However, the Court emphasized that no fundamental right is absolute. When privacy and the right to a fair trial clash, a balancing test must be applied.

“Where parties resort to secret recording, it reflects a complete breakdown of trust. Such evidence may, in fact, demonstrate the very cruelty or mistrust being pleaded.” — Justice Nagarathna

Admissibility Comes with Conditions

The Court outlined four key conditions for admissibility:

• Relevance: The recording must directly relate to the issues in dispute.
• Clarity: The voices in the audio must be distinctly identifiable.
• Authenticity: The recording must be original, untampered, and verifiable.
• Right to Challenge: The other party must have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence during trial.

“A Sign of Broken Trust, Not a Breach of Law”

Justice Nagarathna poignantly observed: “A marriage in which one spouse finds it necessary to secretly record the other is already a marriage without trust. The court cannot pretend that such trust still exists.”

This verdict reflects the judiciary’s attempt to adapt to the technological realities of modern relationships. In an era of smartphones and WhatsApp recordings, the Court recognized that truth in matrimonial disputes may often lie hidden in private conversations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s July 14 judgment goes far beyond the mere admissibility of audio recordings. It addresses the deeper pursuit of truth amid fractured relationships, striking a balance between dignity, privacy, and procedural justice. The ruling does not endorse constant surveillance but calls for responsible use of such evidence in family disputes.