Blog

Privilege communication between husband and wife is admissible in Family Court proceedings: Rajasthan High Court.

The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Preethi Jain vs. Kunal Jain S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 224/2016 passed a judgement on 27-05-2016. The Honorable Justice Alok Sharma while deciding a writ petition the Court stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable to the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as it was submitted as Primary Evidence, since Section 65 B it deals only with Secondary Evidence.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present writ petition was filed by the wife challenging the admissibility of the electronic record filed by the husband in a family court, along with the affidavit in evidence in support of the divorce petition. The Court also held that the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of Evidence Act would not attract in Family court proceedings.

The court observed while rejecting the contention of the wife that, “Section 65 B of the Act of 1872 only deals with the secondary evidence qua electronic records. It does not at all deal with the original electronic records, as in the instant case, where the pinhole camera, with a hard disk memory on which the recording was done has been submitted before the Family Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer has held that if an electronic record is produced as a primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence without compliance with the conditions of Section 65 B of the Act of 1872. That evidence would take the color of primary evidence, subject no doubt to its credibility based on forensic examination and cross examination.”

JUDGEMENT:

The Bench observed that “Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides that a family court may receive any evidence, report, statement, documents, information or matter which in its opinion will facilitate the effective adjudication of the disputes before it, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The aforesaid section therefore makes it pellucid that the issues of relevance and admissibility of evidence which a regulate a regular trial do not burden proceedings before the family courts. It is the discretion of the family court to receive or not to receive the evidence, report, statement, documents, information etc. Placed before it on the test whether it does or does not facilitate an effective adjudication of the disputes before it.”

The Bench further observed “the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of the Evidence Act in proceedings before the Family Court. Section 14 aforesaid is a special law, so to say, as against the general law, which Section 122 of the Act of 1872 encapsulates vis-a-vis privileged communications between husband and wife.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY CHANDANA SHEKAR

Click here to read complete judgement