Secret Call Recordings Of Spouse Inadmissible, Says Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that secretly recording a spouse's phone calls without consent breaches the right to privacy under Article 21 and is inadmissible in matrimonial proceedings. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao dismissed a husband's revision petitions challenging a trial court's refusal to admit call recordings — which lacked the mandatory Section 65-B certificate — along with other documents in his cruelty-based divorce case. The Court also found the remaining evidence, including medical records and trip expenses, showed a cordial marriage rather than cruelty, and upheld the trial court's order.

Read full article

No Consent, No Evidence: Telangana HC Shuts Door On Secretly Taped Spousal Calls

The Telangana High Court has ruled that a spouse cannot secretly record the other's telephone conversations and later rely on them as evidence in matrimonial litigation, holding that such covert recording breaches the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by a husband challenging a trial court's refusal to admit call recordings and other documents in his divorce petition founded on cruelty.

The Husband's Case

The husband had sought to place on record primary and secondary evidence, including electronic material, to bolster his cruelty plea. The trial court had declined the applications, noting that the recordings lacked the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and that there was no clarity on whether the original device containing the recordings was even available, or whether any effort had been made to secure the certificate from a competent authority. Before the High Court, the husband contended that the documents should have been taken on record, leaving questions of admissibility and evidentiary value to be decided at the final hearing; he also claimed that a forensic laboratory had verified the authenticity of the recordings.

Privacy Trumps Persuasion

Upholding the trial court's view, Justice Rajeshwar Rao held that recording a spouse's calls without consent amounts to a breach of privacy protected under Article 21, rendering such material inadmissible in matrimonial proceedings.

Cordial, Not Cruel

The Court also scrutinised the remaining documents the husband sought to introduce — medical records, payment receipts, air tickets, photographs, trip expenses, and money-transfer records — and found they reflected a cordial and successful marriage rather than supporting allegations of cruelty. It further observed that meeting the wife's expenses during a normal marriage was simply part of a husband's ordinary responsibility, not evidence of any wrongdoing on her part.

The Verdict

Concluding that none of the documents advanced the husband's case, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed both revision petitions, reaffirming that clandestine surveillance of a spouse cannot substitute for genuine proof of matrimonial cruelty.