KETHANA LOKESH v. RAHUL R BETTAKOTE, Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

WP 11818 of 2024

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

NAGARATHNA S K
UMASHANKAR M

Judges

Hon`ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The wife filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C. No. 6189/2017 on I.A. No. VIII. [1][2][3]

The husband had instituted the matrimonial case seeking divorce, while the wife had filed a counterclaim. Through I.A. No. VIII, the husband sought permission to examine three witnesses and produce a compact disc containing an audio recording concerning an alleged discussion about Rs.60,00,000 received by the wife's father from the husband's father. [4][5]

The wife denied that the alleged transaction was discussed, contended that the recording was fabricated and made without consent, and opposed the application. [6][7] The Family Court allowed the application, holding that the evidence could be tested through proof, cross-examination, or expert opinion. [8][9]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Family Court was justified in permitting the husband to examine witnesses and produce the audio recording in the matrimonial proceedings. [4][8]
Whether an audio recording allegedly made without the knowledge or consent of the wife was inadmissible as violating the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. [7][10][11]
Whether the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the divorce proceedings and therefore should not have been admitted at that stage. [12]

Arguments of the Parties

Wife's Arguments

The audio recording was inadmissible because it violated the right to privacy under Article 21. [10]
Reliance was placed on Asha Latha Soni Vs. Durgesh Soni, where, according to the wife, an audio recording made without the party's knowledge was held inadmissible. [10]
The alleged monetary discussion was unrelated to the grounds of cruelty pleaded in the divorce petition, and the husband should be limited to evidence relevant to the pleadings. [12]

Husband's Arguments

Relying on Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka, the husband argued that breach of privacy does not by itself make evidence inadmissible, particularly in view of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. [13][14][15]
He submitted that the right to privacy must yield to the opposing party's opportunity to present relevant evidence and receive a fair trial. [15]
He contended that the wife's objections concerning authenticity, relevance, and other monetary issues could be raised before the Family Court and were matters subject to proof. [15][16]

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Asha Latha Soni Vs. Durgesh Soni	The wife relied on this decision for the proposition that an audio recording made without the knowledge of the concerned party was inadmissible. [10]	The Court did not accept the wife's privacy objection in light of the contrary reasoning adopted from Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka. [11]
Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka	Recognition of privacy as a fundamental right does not automatically render evidence collected in breach of privacy inadmissible; Section 14 of the Family Courts Act permits evidence whether or not it is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act. [13][14][15]	The Court held that the audio recording was admissible at this stage and that the wife's objections could be tested through subsequent proof and other procedural safeguards. [11][17]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the husband sought to examine three witnesses regarding a conversation between the parties' fathers and to rely on an audio recording of that conversation. The wife denied that the conversation had occurred and alleged fabrication. [11]

The Court held that, if the conversation had not occurred or the recording had been fabricated, the wife was not without a remedy. The recording remained subject to proof, and its authenticity could be challenged, including through expert opinion. [9][11]

On the privacy objection, the Court followed the reasoning in Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka and concluded that the audio recording was admissible in evidence. The privacy objection therefore did not justify excluding the evidence at the preliminary stage. [13][15][11]

The Court further accepted that the wife's objections concerning the recording and other aspects could be raised before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Since the Family Court's order was considered well reasoned, interference under Article 227 was not warranted. [9][17]

Holding and Implications

WRIT PETITION DISMISSED. The Court upheld the Family Court's order permitting the husband to examine the proposed witnesses and rely on the audio recording, subject to proof. All pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed. [18]

The direct consequence was that the matrimonial proceedings could continue with the proposed evidence, while the wife retained the opportunity to challenge its authenticity, proof, and relevance before the Family Court. [9][17] No broader implication beyond this ruling was stated, and no new precedent was set.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

KETHANA LOKESH v. RAHUL R BETTAKOTE

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:21752

WP No. 11818 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11818 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

KETHANA LOKESH

W/O RAHUL BETTAKOTE D/O.LOKESH

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO. 1, 1^STMAIN,

3^RDCROSS, SHAMANNA GOWDA ROAD

KHB MAINROAD, CAUVERY NAGAR

R.T. NAGAR POST,

BENGALURU - 560 032

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

NO. 510/9-1, 1^STMAIN

2^NDCROSS,

SHAMMANNA GOWDA ROAD

K.H.B. MAIN ROAD, CAUVERY NAGAR

R.T.NAGAR POST

BANGALORE - 560 032 …PETITIONER

(BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAHUL R.BETTAKOTE

S/O. RAJANNA B.K.

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.14,

KUVEMPU MAIN ROAD

1^STCROSS, SRINIVASA GARDEN

NAGASHETTY HALLI,

BENGALURU-560 094 …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.RAJATH S., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.UMASHANKAR M., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE

ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. PRIN. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED 02.04.2024 IN M.C. 6189/2017 ON I.A.NO.8 AND TO GRANT COSTS OF THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.VIII in M.C.No.6189/2017 dated 02.04.2024 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the wife is before this Court.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. The husband had filed M.C.No.6189/2017 seeking divorce and the wife has filed her counter claim. In that, I.A.No.VIII is filed by the husband to file witness list to prove the case on merits, wherein in the said application, it is stated that the witnesses that is sought to examine are witness No.1 - the father of the husband and witness No.2 - the maternal uncle and witness No.3 - the uncle of father of the wife. It is the case that they were all assembled at Shanthisagar Hotel,

- 3 -

R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru on 12.01.2017 and discussed regarding an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- received by the father of the wife from the husband's father towards marriage expenses and clearing the hand loan taken from private persons and he prays the Court to permit witness Nos.1 to 3 and along with that, a C.D. which shows what has transpired on that day between the parties to prove the case on merits.

4. Objections were filed by the wife stating that her father has not received any amount as alleged and in fact, the father-in-law had sent word that they wanted to have a meeting to reconcile the matter between the wife and husband and her father with a bonafide intention of settling his daughter's life went to meet the husband's father. There were no talks of the alleged transaction of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- on that day. But the husband and his father wanted the wife's father to give him the amount for his business which he always demanded from the wife. As the talks did not materialize and failed, the wife's father returned back. The husband and his father took undue advantage of the meeting have created audio records to make a wrongful gain.

- 4 -

The alleged audio record which the husband is relying on is a concocted and created record by the husband to suit his malafide purpose and intent. The created audio which is done behind the back of the wife and her father is without their consent and knowledge. The husband and his father are trying to create evidence for an alleged transaction that has not taken place. Hence, the wife had prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The Trial Court had considered the objections raised on behalf of the wife and also considering the case of both the parties, the Trial Court had allowed the application, wherein the Trial Court had observed that the very objection of the wife is that there were no talks of alleged transaction of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- as alleged by the husband and the audio recording which the husband is relying is concocted and created as to suit his case with a malafide intention. Further, the Trial Court had also observed that the laws relied on by the wife are with regard to violation of privacy under Article 21 of Constitution of India but here it is the matrimonial dispute the husband having filed the petition for dissolving his marriage on the ground of cruelty. What has transpired in the

- 5 -

panchayath which had taken place prior to filing of the present petition is what the petitioner wants to make out in his evidence. So the petitioner cannot be curtailed from leading his further evidence by examining the witness. On the other hand, if any of the witness is author of the conversation which is said to be contained in the audio, it has to be marked through the author of the document and the wife having objected the production of the said C.D. The document will always be subject to proof. So if at all it is created and concocted, the wife is having every opportunity of subjecting it to prove or for obtaining an opinion of the expert with regard to its authenticity and accordingly, allowed the petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the said C.D. is not admissible in evidence as it is violation of right to privacy under Article 21 of Constitution of India. He had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur, in the case of Asha Latha Soni Vs. Durgesh Soni¹and submits that when the audio was recorded without the knowledge of the party, the Court had held that the 2023SCC Online CHH 3959

- 6 -

same is not admissible in evidence. Secondly, it is contended that the divorce petition is filed on the ground of cruelty and there are so many grounds taken by the husband and whether any money is demanded or anything had taken place, has nothing to do with the adjudication of the main dispute between the parties and as such, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the said application and the parties have to prove their case on evidence that is relevant to the pleadings.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka², wherein similar issue had fell for consideration. The Delhi High Court had elaborately discussed several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and had come to the conclusion that though privacy is recognized as a fundamental right, that alone would not make evidence collected in breach of that right, inadmissible. Much less would it negate the specific statutory dispensation contained in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which says that evidence

AIR 2020 DEL 156

- 7 -

would be admissible, whether or not the same is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act. It is also observed that while a litigating party certainly has a right to privacy, that right must yield to the right of an opposing party to bring evidence it considers relevant to the Court, to prove its case. It is a critical part of the hallowed concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before the Court. It is also observed that it is important to appreciate that while the right to privacy is essentially a personal right, the right to a fair trial has wider ramifications and impacts public justice which is a larger cause. The cause of public justice would suffer if the opportunity of fair trial is denied by shutting out evidence that a litigating party may wish to lead at the very threshold. Basing on the said judgments, learned counsel submits that the said C.D. is admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that there are disputes between the parties on monitory aspects and also it has been averred in this petition. It is submitted that all the other grounds that are raised by the wife can be raised before the court as the same is subject to proof and relevancy. He

- 8 -

submits that the order of the Trial Court is a well considered one and no interference is called for.

8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The husband wanted to examine three witnesses with regard to a conversation that had taken place between the father of the wife and the father of the husband and at that time, he had taken an audio recording. According to the wife, no such conversation had taken place. It is a fabricated one and it violates the right to privacy. These two grounds are considered by the Trial Court. If such a conversation had not taken place and they have placed C.D. on record, the wife is not remediless which is rightly observed by the Trial Court. Then coming to the violation of right to privacy, the argument of the learned counsel has no legs to stand in the light of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Deepti

Kapur's referred supra as discussed in the above paragraphs. While considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that such an audio recording is admissible in evidence and other grounds that are raised with regard to other aspects, the Trial Court had already

- 9 -

observed that the wife will have opportunity at later point of time. Considering all these aspects, this Court of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court is a well considered one and no interference is called for.

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending I.A.s, if any shall stand closed.

SD/-

JUDGE

MEG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

KETHANA LOKESH v. RAHUL R BETTAKOTE

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Wife's Arguments

Husband's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

KETHANA LOKESH v. RAHUL R BETTAKOTE

Comments