Blog > Redefining Admissibility of Evidence – Relevance over Consent
Redefining Admissibility of Evidence – Relevance over Consent
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a family court's decision on allowing a husband to use evidence procured without his wife's consent, citing Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the basis.
This incident involved a husband who filed for divorce, claiming his wife was having an extramarital affair. He submitted chats as Exhibits allegedly showing her conversations with another person— though the chats were auto-forwarded from her phone using a hidden app.
The wife denied the allegation made in the plaint.
The family court had accepted the chat records as valid legal evidence. Not satisfied with the order given by the family court, she made an appeal against the ruling in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The wife, however, objected to this evidence that the evidence was obtained without her consent which was illegal and infringed her constitutional right to privacy so the same cannot be relied upon and such evidence is inadmissible in evidence. Additionally, the evidence collected is in violation of Sections. 43, 66 & 72 of the Information Technology Act.
Many precedents were replied by both the counsels to support their submission/objections.
In the event of conflict between two fundamental rights, as in this case, a contest between the right to privacy and the right to fair trial, both of which arise under Article 21 of our Constitution, the right to privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, after hearing the husband’s argument that the WhatsApp chat records were relevant to prove allegations of adultery, referred to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which allows any material to be treated as evidence in family disputes, regardless of its admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.
It upheld the family court’s order and permitted the husband to use WhatsApp chats as evidence.
The court has cited that “The evidence is admissible if it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected”
Wide powers: More responsibility
This case has given insight into how much flexibility and power section 14 of family courts has over other constitutional rights and the big role it plays in Family court disputes. In view of the unusual and wide power conferred on Family Court under Section 14, certain safeguards are required to be adopted by the Family Court while exercising its power under that provision. Some of such safeguards may be:
- The authenticity of the chat needs to be verified thoroughly.
- In camera (private) proceedings needs to be followed for sensitive cases.
- Dignity should be maintained throughout the proceedings. Basic Decorum must be followed.
- The procurer cannot be spared for illegal access of evidence and must be punished according to Civil or criminal law.
- To avoid fabrication or tampering with such evidence, the verification process must be stricter.
- Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence is admissible if it is relevant, no matter how it was collected. However, concerns about misuse—especially regarding privacy—should be addressed by the Family Court when deciding how to use the evidence during the final decision, not at the time of admitting it.
- Admitting vs. Proving: Just admitting evidence into the record does not mean a fact has been proved. Admission only means the evidence is on record and it is not proof of fact. The court will decide its value after considering all factors and circumstances.
- Relevance and Fair Trial: The test of relevance ensures a party’s right to present evidence and get a fair trial. How much importance the court gives to that evidence is entirely its discretion.
- Illegally Collected Evidence: Allowing such evidence to be admitted does not protect the person who collected it unlawfully from any legal consequences under civil or criminal law.
- Caution and Higher Standard: The court must handle such evidence carefully and ensure it has not been tampered with. The standard of proof for its authenticity and accuracy should be stricter than for regular evidence.