RAIPUR: Setting aside a family court order, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that recording a telephonic conversation without the knowledge and permission of the person concerned is a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A woman had challenged the order passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund, on October 21, 2021, in a miscellaneous criminal case, whereby the application filed by the respondent husband under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon the witness for further cross-examination has been allowed.
Earlier, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 125 of the CrPC in the Family Court for the grant of maintenance, and the same was pending since 2019.
The petitioner led her evidence; thereafter, the case was fixed for the examination of the witnesses and production of documents.
In the meantime, the husband moved an application under Section 311 of the CrPC, along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, for the re-examination of the petitioner on the ground that certain conversations between them were recorded on the mobile phone, and he wants to cross-examine the petitioner, confronting her with the conversations recorded on the mobile. The trial court, on October 21, 2022, allowed the said application.
The counsel for the petitioner, Vaibhav A Goverdhan, submitted to the High Court that the trial court has committed an error of law by allowing the application as it infringes the right of privacy of the petitioner. Without her knowledge, the conversation was recorded by the respondent, and it cannot be used against her. The counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of R M Malkani v. State of Maharashtra and the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Anurima alias Abha Mehta v. Sunil Mehta.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, T. K. Jha, submitted that the husband wanted to produce certain evidence to prove some allegation against the petitioner. The husband has the right to confront the petitioner with the conversation which was recorded on his mobile phone, the counsel argued and submitted that the Family Court has rightly allowed the application.
The High Court Judge, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, said, “I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents. The family Court, on the ground that certain conversations were recorded by the respondent husband on his mobile and he wants to prove the same against the petitioner, therefore, the piece of evidence is necessary for a just decision of the case.”
Now, coming to the facts of the case, it appears that the respondent has recorded the conversation of the petitioner without her knowledge behind her back, which amounts to a violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the High Court Judge said.
The High Court Judge further observed that the right of privacy is an essential component of the right to life envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the Family Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application of the respondent. The High Court set aside the Family Court order and vacated the interim order of this trial court.
