Covert Voice Recording in Matrimonial Disputes Does Not Infringe Privacy?
by K.P. Hemanth Kumar* and K.P. Pramodh Kumar**
by K.P. Hemanth Kumar* and K.P. Pramodh Kumar**
“The Court explained that mere general allegations of harassment and cruelty without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person”.
Stay informed on the latest Supreme Court judgments of July 2025 on Bihar’s Electoral Roll revision, recording of spousal conversations; Tribal woman’s rights over ancestral property; Guidelines on collection of DNA evidence and mental health of college students. Explore notable rulings shaping the legal landscape.
“Spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of Evidence Act for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights.”
The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant.
The Court stated that the school cannot deny the issuance of TC to the child, who has sought admission in other school. In the event of delay in issuance of TC, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Headmaster or In-Charge of the school.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court stated that it is baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife has never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.
“Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.”
Allahabad High Court directed the Chief Secretary of UP to confirm whether Dowry Prohibition Officers had been appointed as required by law, in the absence of which the State Government was directed to justify such non-compliance
“It is a collective duty of both husband and wife to wither the trivial issues which are normal in a matrimonial life and mutual respect to the decision of each other appears to be the hallmark of the society. Even the Constitution recognises equality in gender and, therefore, the husband to be put on higher degree than that of the wife is unacceptable.”
Unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the fountain head of friction inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together. These factors are the wheels of the chariot of a workable marriage and if either spouse becomes averse to move together and chooses to abandon the relationship, then extensive reconciliatory efforts by one spouse, would also not yield any results.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“To create life and give birth to the child is the God gifted power that lies with the mother. But here is a situation where her own creations or sons are not interested to even meet her, let alone live together.”
Supreme Court viewed that the child being aged 12 years and 9 months old, was in a position to take decisions.
The Court also acknowledged the husband’s difficulty taking leave every now and then and allowed him to appear through video conferencing for the days when his physical presence is not required.
The courts should make all efforts to try and dispose of matrimonial matters within 1 year so that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may re-structure their lives.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala*, JJ, in a matter relating to custody of two minor children, has
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia J. disposed of the petition and quashed the FIR/complaint. The facts of the case are