Chandigarh: The Punjab High Court and Haryana have explained that “the recording of a telephone conversation from his wife by her husband without his knowledge amounted to violations of his rights to privacy.” “Furthermore, it cannot be said or certainly regarding the situation in which the conversation is held or the way in which a response caused by someone who records a conversation, because it is proven that this conversation must have been secretly recorded by one of the parties,” HC has been held.
Judge Lisa Gill passed these commands in the request submitted by a woman who challenged the orders on January 29, 2020, authorized by the family court in Bathinda where her isolated husband was allowed to prove that the CD was related to the conversation between him and the wife submitted in conditions The truth.
Plea: The Family Court overlooked the Sec 65 Proof of Actin This case, the Petitioner’s husband has submitted a request that seeks divorce in various reasons in 2017.
The marriage between the parties is private on February 20, 2009, and they have a daughter in May 2011.
During Crossing, the woman’s husband moved the application on July 9, 2019, looking for permission to submit a statement of additional information through an examination-in-chief along with the CD and transcription of conversations recorded on their respective memory cards / chips.
In January 2020, the court allowed the man’s request to prove a CD related to the conversation between him and his wife submitted to the conditions of truth.
It also argues that the strict principles of evidence do not apply to trials before the family court still remembers part 14 and 20 of the family court law.
Harmed from this, the wife had approached HC.
In his request, the woman argues that this evidence has been incorrectly received, because the number will violate and the invasion is truly in its privacy, because the conversation has been recorded without the knowledge and approval.
He argues that the family court has fully ignored Part 65 of Indian evidence law, because if the recording has been done through a cellphone, the CD from recording and transcripts in any case, cannot be accepted as proof.
The adviser who represented the woman’s husband, referred to section 122 of the evidence law, submitted that there were no questions about violations of rights to privacy and that in any case, the husband can always undergo a cross examination.
The advice argued that the conversation recorded did not exceed the request because the man always argued that he was cruelly treated by his wife.
“Although specific conversations are not mentioned in the petition, it has been clearly mentioned that the wives usually treat husbands cruelly.
The conversation recorded is only an effort to prove the same thing,” the man begged.
After hearing the two parties, HC ordered that the family trial order must be canceled, explaining that the recording of the recording would be a violation of the fundamental rights of the wife.
Record wife’s phone calls secretly violating privacy: HC
