A recent Supreme Court ruling has clarified that secretly recorded conversations between spouses can be used as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes. This has triggered debate over privacy, surveillance, and the balance between protecting marital sanctity and upholding justice. Senior Advocate Ajeetha breaks down the implications of this landmark decision and its impact on family law across India.

The Supreme Court has allowed secretly recorded conversations between spouses to be used in court. Does this ruling fundamentally alter the balance between privacy and legal evidence in marriage?

There are two main considerations here — privacy and the sanctity of marriage. This ruling is especially useful in cases where domestic abuse occurs behind closed doors, and no external witnesses are available. Even close family members may not be able to testify, so such recordings become crucial.

Technically, it’s not “secret” in the criminal sense, but rather surreptitious — one spouse records without the other’s knowledge. This often helps capture the unguarded, honest speech of an abusive partner. The judgment implicitly stresses that relationships should not be violent or coercive. I see this as a positive development.

While courts have previously differed on this issue, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that such recordings — even without the other spouse’s knowledge — are admissible as evidence in matrimonial disputes.

Also read: Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC

Could you elaborate on the legal foundation — specifically Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act — that this judgment reinterprets?

Yes. This case — Bibor Garg vs Neha — originated from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had ruled that conversations between spouses couldn’t be used in a divorce case. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, stating that Section 122 doesn’t bar such evidence in matrimonial cases.

Section 122 typically provides privilege to communication between spouses. However, it has an exception: if the parties are litigating against each other, then those privileged communications can be admitted. The Supreme Court upheld a family court order that had allowed the use of a recorded phone conversation and its transcript by the husband.

So, while no spouse can be compelled to testify against the other, if one voluntarily uses such communication to assert their rights in court, it is legally admissible. That’s the key distinction between compellability and admissibility.

Also read: Prof Mahmudabad case | You don’t need him, you need a dictionary, SC slams Haryana SIT

Critics argue that this opens the door to surveillance in marriage. Could this ruling worsen fragile relationships rather than help?

That concern is valid, and it was raised in court too. Imagine a marriage where both partners are secretly recording each other — it’s toxic. But if the relationship has already deteriorated to that point, recordings aren’t the cause of the fragility — they are the symptom.

Protecting a fragile relationship by disallowing such recordings may prolong abuse. Often, couples are urged to “stay together for the sake of children”. I say, sometimes, for the sake of children, separation is healthier — especially if the environment is abusive or disrespectful.

Children raised in homes where abuse is normalised internalise that toxicity. Girls may learn to endure violence silently. Boys may believe it’s acceptable to mistreat women. Allowing abuse to persist in the name of preserving the marriage harms everyone involved.

Also read: Feeding stray dogs: Why don’t you feed them in your house? SC asks petitioner

So you’re saying that in such situations, recording isn’t surveillance — it’s self-defence?

Exactly. In abusive households, women are often not believed — not by their families, police, or the courts. Patriarchal systems create bias against victims. In this climate, if a woman records a conversation to prove verbal or physical abuse, she’s defending herself.

This ruling won’t affect healthy marriages. I don’t record my husband because there’s trust. But when abuse is present, and one spouse needs validation for future legal action, that recording becomes essential. Either due to real-time abuse or deep psychological mistrust, these recordings are a tool for justice.

Does this judgment significantly reframe how courts should interpret Section 122 in the future?

Absolutely. Courts, especially in matrimonial matters, often prioritise reconciliation over justice. They urge compromise even in cases involving domestic violence.

However, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act clearly says mediation or counselling cannot be used to justify abuse. Yet in practice, institutions — from family to police to courts — often pressurise women to “adjust” and remain silent.

This judgment tells victims: you can speak up. You can record. You can use it in court. That’s a powerful message.

You’ve mentioned society often penalises single women more than abusive husbands. How does this ruling push back against that?

We need to normalise support for single women. Society rarely changes, but women are asked to tolerate violence for the sake of appearances. They’re told, “don’t break the marriage” even when the marriage is breaking them.

This ruling empowers women to step out of abusive marriages, not with empty words, but with hard evidence. It protects their right to dignity.

And yes, even men who face abuse can use this ruling to their advantage — it’s gender-neutral in that sense.

In practical terms, what does this mean for victims of domestic violence in India now?

Use your smartphone. If you’re experiencing abuse and cannot gather outside witnesses, record conversations. This judgment ensures that what you record — if relevant — can be submitted as evidence in court.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 122 correctly, and this will now become precedent across India. It removes ambiguity and reinforces that domestic violence is not to be normalised in the name of marital harmony.

(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)