Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanvi Singh vs Ashutosh Kumar Singh on 31 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
1 MP-4238-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 4238 of 2025
TANVI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla - Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on : 11.09.2025
Pronounced on : 31.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1] This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, District Indore in MJC/GW/99/2023 whereby learned Judge rejected
the application filed by the petitioner.
2] Matter in brief, is that, the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and the
respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2013 as per Hindu rituals which was
later on dissolved on vide decree dated 21.06.2023 wherein the parties were
granted divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner No. 2 a minor daughter
was born in wedlock on 29.09.2018 and is presently residing with petitioner
No. 1/wife as per the conditions of the mutual consent divorce. Despite the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
2 MP-4238-2025
settled conditions of mutual divorce, the respondent has again filed an
application under Section 25(1) and 12 of The Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 seeking the custody of the minor daughter/petitioner No. 2. The
respondent during his examination-in-chief has placed on record, the alleged
pen drive containing audio/video clips and telephonic conversation with the
petitioners and grandparents. The petitioners filed an application under Order
XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in
short "CPC") for rejection/deletion of the above mentioned pen drive on the
ground that it amounts to infringement of the right to privacy with other
grounds.
3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned
order deserves to be set aside on being contrary to law. The Family Court
grossly has erred in not considering the fact that placing on record such
electronic evidence would prejudice to the social status of the petitioners. It
is a well settled that in such cases, recorded telephonic conversations amount
the parties or any other third person is illegal and amounts to infringement on
the right to privacy of the wife. He has further argued that learned Family
Court has also erred in not appreciating the fact that the telephonic
conversation/vide call and video recording is a part of modern man's life and
often, it is intimate and confidential in character and such conversations are
an important facet of man's private life. Tapping of such telephonic/video
conversation and vide recordings without knowledge and consent of the
other parties, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is
permitted under the procedure established by law. Hence, it is prayed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
3 MP-4238-2025
impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed.
4] In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance over the judgment Aasha Lata Soni Vs. Durgesh Soni, LAWS
(CHH) 2023-10-30, Neha Vs. Vibhore Garg, SCC 2021 OnLine P & H 4571,
Anurima @ Abha Mehta Vs. Sunil Mehta, AIR 2016 MP 112, Anvar P.V.
Vs. P.K. Basheer & Others, 2014 (10) SCC 473 and Elizabeth Dinshaw Vs.
Arvand M. Dinshaw and Another, 1987 (1) SCC 42.
5] On the contrary, Counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently
opposes the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and prays for
dismissal of the petition.
6] Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7] The validity of impugned order is required to be tested on the
anvil of principles of admissibility of evidence keeping in view the statement
of objects & reasons and the provisions of Section 14 & 20 of Family Courts
Act, 1984. The Statement of objects & reasons of the Family Courts Act
enunciates the main purpose of its enactment in the following words: -
"Statement of Objects and Reasons.--Several
associations of women, other organisations
and individuals have urged, from time to
time, that Family Courts be set up for the
settlement of family disputes, where
emphasis should be laid on conciliation and
achieving socially desirable results and
adherence to rigid rules of procedure and
evidence should be eliminated. The Law
Commission in its 59th report (1974) had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
4 MP-4238-2025
also stressed that in dealing with disputes
concerning the family the court ought to
adopt an approach radically different from
that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and
that it should make reasonable efforts at
settlement before the commencement of the
trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was
amended in 1976 to provide for a special
procedure to be adopted in suits or
proceedings relating to matters concerning
the family. However, not much use has been
made by the courts in adopting this
conciliatory procedure and the courts
continue to deal with family disputes in the
same manner as other civil matters and the
same adversary approach prevails. The need
was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to
establish Family Courts for speedy settlement
of family disputes."
"2. The Bill inter alia, seeks to--
******
h ) simplify the rules of evidence and
procedure so as to enable a Family Court to
deal effectually with a dispute;
(Emphasis supplied)
8] Further, Section 14 & 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984, are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-
"14. Application of Indian Evidence Act,
1872.- 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,
1872 (1 of 1872).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
5 MP-4238-2025
20. Act to have overriding effect.- The
provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than
this Act."
9] In order to achieve its object to simplify the rules of evidence and
procedure, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides for an exception to
the general rule of evidence regarding admissibility of any report, statements,
documents, information or matter, which it considers necessary to assist it
and to deal with it effectively. Apparently, such a provision is made keeping
in view the nature of cases which are dealt with by the Family Courts. It is
not out of place to mention that Section 14 of Family Courts Act is a special
legislation and by virtue of this provision, the strict principles of
admissibility of evidence as provided under the Evidence Act have been
relaxed.
10] A bare reading of Section 14 & 20 of the Family Courts Act,
takes within its ambit the restricted applications of the provisions of the
Evidence Act qua the documentary evidence which includes electronic
evidence, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible. The only guiding
factor is that the Family Court should be of the opinion that such evidence
would assist the Court to deal with the matrimonial dispute effectively. It is
the absolute power and authority of the Family Court either to accept or
discard particular evidence in finally adjudicating the matrimonial dispute.
11] At this juncture, for adjudicating the issue involved in this
petition, it would be useful to extract certain provisions of Indian Evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
6 MP-4238-2025
Act, 1872 (Now Bharatiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in short "the
Adhiniyam, 2023") (for brevity "the Act, 1872"). Section 5 of the Act, 1872
(Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) provides that:
"5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant
facts- Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding
of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue
and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be
relevant, and of no others.
Explanation-- This section shall not enable any person
to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to
prove by any provision of the law for the time being in
force relating to Civil Procedure."
"122. Communication during marriage.- No person who
is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose
any communication made to him during marriage by
any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall
he be permitted to disclose any such communication,
unless the person who made it, or his representative in
interest, consents, except in suits between married
persons, or proceedings in which one married person is
prosecuted for any crime committed against the other."
12] Section 65B of the Act, 1872 (Section 63 of the Adhiniyam,
2023) defines : Admissibility of electronic records.
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper,
stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer
(hereinafter referred to as the computer
output) shall be deemed to be also a
document, if the conditions mentioned in this
section are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question and
shall be admissible in any proceedings,
without further proof or production of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
7 MP-4238-2025
original, as evidence or any contents of the
original or of any fact stated therein of which
direct evidence would be admissible."
13] Thus, the explanation to Section 5 of the Act, 1872 (Section 3 of
the Adhiniyam, 2023) restrains a person from giving evidence of a fact which
he is disentitled to prove under any law, on the other hand Section 122 of the
Act, 1872 (Section 128 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) permits disclosure of any
communication made to a person during marriage by any person to whom he
is married in a suit between married persons.
14] Before referring to various judicial pronouncements dealing with
the scope of Section 14 of Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Act,
1872 (Section 128 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) it is profitable to deal with the
argument of learned counsel for petitioner/ wife that the evidence produced
by respondent is not obtained by legal means and the method adopted by him
for obtaining such evidence has violated wife's right of privacy as enshrined
under Article 21 of Constitution of India. To deal with this argument, it is
profitable to refer to certain authorities of Apex Court dealing with right to
privacy, considered to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of
Constitution of India.
15] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.M. Malkani vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1973) 1 SCC 471 was dealing with admissibility of
a tape recorded conversation, which was obtained by illegal means, in a
criminal matter involving offences punishable under Section of 161 & 385 of
Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court held thus:-
"It was said by counsel for the appellant that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
8 MP-4238-2025
the tape recorded conversation was obtained
by illegal means. The illegality was said to be
contravention of section 25 of the Indian
Telegraph Act. There is no violation of
section 25 of the Telegraph Act in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. There
is warrant for proposition that even if,
evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.
Over a century ago it was said in an English
case where a constable searched the appellant
illegally and found a quantity of offending
article in his pocket that it would be a
dangerous obstacle to the administration of
justice if it were held, because evidence was
obtained by illegal means, it could not be
used against a party charged with an offence.
See Jones v. Owen(6). The Judicial
Committee in Kur ma, Son of Kanju v. R.(7)
dealt with the conviction of an accused of
being in unlawful possession of ammunition
which had been discovered in consequence of
a search of his person by a police officer
below the rank of those who were permitted
to make such searches. The Judicial
Committee held that the evidence was rightly
admitted. The reason given was that if
evidence was admissible it matters not how it
was obtained. There is of course always a
word of caution. It is that the Judge has a
discretion to disallow evidence in a criminal
case if the strict rules of admissibility would
operate unfairly against the accused. That
caution is the golden rule in criminal
jurisprudence.
This Court in Magraj Patodia v. R. K. Birla
& Ors.(3) dealt with the admissibility in
evidence of two files containing numerous
documents produced on behalf of the election
petitioner. Those files contained
correspondence relating to the election of
respondent No. 1. The correspondence was
between respondent No. 1 the elected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
9 MP-4238-2025
candidate and various other persons. The
witness who produced the file said that
respondent No. 1 handed over the file to him
for safe custody. The candidate had
apprehended raid at his residence in
connection with the evasion of taxes or
duties. The version of the witness as to how
he came to know about the file was not
believed by this Court. This Court said that a
document which was procured by improper
or even by illegal means could not bar its
admissibility provided its relevance and
genuineness were proved."
16] So far as the law relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is
concerned in the cases of Aasha Lata Soni (supra), Neha (supra), Anurima @
Abha Mehta (supra), Anvar P.V. (supra) and Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra), the
findings in the said judgments is only with regard to right of privacy, but, in
this regard, as per procedure established by law, Section 5 of the Act, 1872
(Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) does not touch upon the aspect of right
to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
present case arise from the case of the custody of petitioner No. 2/Aadhya, a
minor daughter. First, the Court should look the best interest of the minor
daughter, which is the primary consideration in this case. In so far as the pen
drive in question is concerned, neither party claims that it depicts
conversations or intimate moments between the petitioner No. 1 and
respondent. In those cases, the question was about the admissibility of the
wife's conversation with another person and those facts were considered to
be a violation of the wife's right to privacy. There is no such disputed
conversation or video which violates the right to privacy of the petitioner
No. 1. Thus, no benefit can be granted to the appellant. Hence, the same is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
10 MP-4238-2025
discarded.
17] In view of the aforesaid discussions and settled position of law,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
08.01.2025 is not contrary to the provisions of law and is hereby affirmed.
18] The Trial Court may continue in accordance with the provisions
of law and the recording, produced by the respondent/husband will be
considered at the time of final argument in accordance with law.
19] It is also made clear that the learned Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observation made by this Court in passing the final order.
20] With the aforesaid observations and directions, present
Miscellaneous Petition No. 4238/2025 is dismissed to the extent herein
above indicated.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
