RAM TALRAJA Vs. SAPNA TALREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned orders dtd. 13/7/2021 and 8/1/2022 passed by the 1st Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in RCS (HM) No.947/2017, whereby admissibility of conversation between both the parties recorded in Pen Drive and its transcript is declared inadmissible in the evidence.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed a petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Respondent filed her written statement. During the examination of petitioner respondent objected to the Pen Drive being exhibited on the ground of infringement of right to privacy of respondent as the said conversation was between respondent and her sister, which was recorded without her knowledge. Vide order dtd. 13/7/2021 trial Court has denied the admissibility of Pen Drive and its transcript on the ground that the said conversation was incomplete and the said recorded conversation infringes right to privacy of the respondent. Thereafter petitioner filed an application for placing on record the Pen Drive and complete recorded conversation between respondent and her sister and respondent filed reply to the said application, but by the impugned order dtd. 8/1/2022 trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of res judicata.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that tape recorded conversation were admissible as evidence since they fell within the purview of documents under Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that as per the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.M. Malkhani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1973(1) SCC 471 tape recording of such conversation is admissible. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that consideration of evidence by a Family Court is not restricted by the rules of relevancy or admissibility provided under the Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Punit Agrawal Vs. Murarilal and others, 2020(3) MPLJ 368, in the case of Anurima Vs. Sunil Mehta 2016(1) MPLJ 333 and in the case of Deepti Kapur Vs. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that both the impugned orders be set aside and the application dtd. 12/8/2021 be allowed and documents enclosed along with the said application be taken on record.