Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Illegally Collected WhatsApp Chats Admissible in Matrimonial Disputes: MP High Court Upholds Family Court’s Discretion under Section 14: Madhya Pradesh High Court
In a significant judgment addressing the admissibility of electronic evidence in family law cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the Family Court’s order allowing WhatsApp chats, allegedly obtained without consent, to be exhibited in a divorce case to support allegations of adultery. In Smt. Anjali Sharma v. Raman Upadhyay, the wife challenged the Family Court’s April 2023 order which had permitted the husband to mark WhatsApp conversations between the wife and a third person as evidence in ongoing matrimonial proceedings. The husband admitted that these chats were auto-forwarded to his phone through a special application secretly installed on the wife’s mobile, suggesting an extramarital affair. The wife objected on the grounds that such surveillance violated her right to privacy and that the evidence was illegally obtained in violation of Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, as well as Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, upholding the Family Court’s order. It ruled that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court is empowered to receive any report, statement, document, information or material that may, in its opinion, assist in the effective resolution of the dispute, regardless of whether such evidence is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that this special provision overrides the stricter rules of admissibility under general evidence law and provides discretionary powers to Family Courts to accept even illegally obtained evidence if it is relevant. Further, under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, communications made during marriage can be disclosed in suits between spouses. The Court clarified that these provisions have not been challenged and are presumed constitutionally valid.
The bench referred to precedent from the Supreme Court, including R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra and Sharda v. Dharmpal, to reiterate that illegally obtained evidence may still be admissible if it is relevant and genuine. It also distinguished and declined to follow previous High Court rulings (e.g., Neha Garg, Rayala M. Bhuvaneshwari, Anurima @ Abha Mehta), holding that those decisions did not consider the scope of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act or Section 122 of the Evidence Act, and were therefore rendered per incuriam and sub silentio. The Court further clarified that the right to privacy under Article 21 is not absolute and must be balanced against the opposing party’s right to a fair trial, also under Article 21. When these rights conflict, the right to a fair trial prevails in matrimonial proceedings.
While allowing such evidence, the Court laid down safeguards: Family Courts must cautiously assess the authenticity and genuineness of such material, may conduct in-camera proceedings if evidence is sensitive, and must ensure that production of evidence does not violate decency or decorum. Importantly, the admissibility of evidence does not grant immunity to the party collecting it through unlawful means — they may still be liable under civil or criminal law.
Summing up, the Court held that relevance, not legality of procurement, is the guiding test for admissibility under Section 14. Family Courts are not bound by rigid procedural rules but must exercise discretion prudently while deciding what weight to assign to such evidence during final adjudication. With this, the High Court dismissed the wife’s petition, confirming that the WhatsApp chats could remain on record to be considered at the discretion of the Family Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
