ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner/wife assailing the order passed on an application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking leave of the court to produce the video recording sent to respondent/husband. The family court allowed the application and respondent/husband is permitted to place on record the C.D. containing the video recording and whatsapp messages sent by petitioner/wife. The said order is under challenge by the petitioner/wife.
2. Respondent/husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent/husband filed an application seeking leave of the court to place on record the video recording and whatsapp messages which are sent by petitioner/wife. The said application is allowed. The order under challenge is questioned on the ground that the family court erred in allowing such an application,
- 3 -
as it contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Neha vs Vibhor Garg in Cr.No.1616/2020. Placing reliance on this judgment, he would point out that video recording and whatsapp messages would virtually infringe the wife's privacy and therefore, request is made to set aside the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Section 122 of the Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent. I have given my anxious consideration to the order under challenge and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife.
4. The dictum laid down by High Court of Punjab & Haryana cited supra deals with the case where conversation recorded by the husband without wife's consent or without her knowledge was sought to be relied.
- 4 -
The High Court was of the view that husband's application seeking leave to place reliance on C.D. containing video clippings was totally unjustified. The ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra has no application to the present case on hand.
5. In the present case on hand, petitioner/wife herself has sent video recording and whatsapp messages and therefore, protection granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the present case on hand. The second ground of attack is that the order under challenge contravenes Section 122 of the Act also cannot be acceded to. Section 122 of the Act carves out exception, wherein spouse can place reliance on the communications between husband and wife in suits. Therefore, the order under challenge permitting the respondent/husband to place on record the video recording and whatsapp messages falls under exceptions enumerated under Section 122 of the Act.
- 5 -
6. In identical case, Rajasthan High Court in the case of Preeti Jain Vs. Kunal Jain and Another reported in AIR (Rajasthan) 153 held that privilege in respect of husband and wife communication under Section 122 of the Act is eclipsed by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Even on this count also, I am not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife. Section 14 of the Family Court Act contemplates that, Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.
7. The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8