Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Use of Private Chats as Evidence in Matrimonial Dispute

In a significant ruling dated June 16, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted the use of a wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a Matrimonial Dispute, even though they were obtained without her consent. The husband had installed a monitoring application on his wife's phone, which automatically forwarded her WhatsApp messages to his device. These chats suggested an extramarital relationship, forming the basis for his petition seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife's counsel challenged the admissibility of this evidence, contending that it infringed on her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and also violated provisions of the Information Technology Act—specifically Sections 43, 66, and 72. However, the High Court rejected this contention, holding that the right to privacy, while fundamental, is not absolute. Citing precedents such as Sharda v. Dharmpal and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court emphasized that privacy rights may be curtailed in favor of other compelling legal principles, such as the right to a fair trial—also guaranteed under Article 21.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court interpreted Section 14 of the Family Courts Act as allowing wider discretion in accepting evidence for resolving matrimonial disputes. The court clarified that Family Courts are not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act and can consider materials, even if acquired without proper legal procedures, so long as they assist in resolving the matter.

The admissibility of such evidence hinges on its relevance and usefulness, not the manner in which it was obtained. The judge has full discretion to assign weight to the evidence during final adjudication. Inclusion of evidence under Section 14 does not bind the Family Court to rely on it; the court may disregard it if found unreliable after scrutiny.

Parties are entitled to contest, challenge, and cross-examine the submitted material. The court emphasized that allowing such evidence does not grant immunity to those who may have broken laws to procure it. Admissibility does not equal credibility—the evidence must still be evaluated for authenticity and integrity. The court stressed that caution must be exercised to prevent misuse or tampering, and the right to a fair trial must be upheld.