In the digital age, personal communications often take place over messaging platforms like WhatsApp. With the growing use of these platforms, Indian courts are increasingly faced with the question: Can WhatsApp messages be used as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes? This issue came into sharp focus in the 2025 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Anjali Sharma v. Raman Upadhyay (Miscellaneous Petition No. 3395 of 2023), where the court allowed WhatsApp chats between spouses to be marked as exhibits in a divorce proceeding. The judgment not only clarified the scope of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, but also addressed concerns about the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner-wife challenged an order of the Family Court, Gwalior, which had permitted her husband to exhibit WhatsApp chats allegedly showing her involvement in an extramarital affair. The husband had used a special application installed in the wife’s phone (without her consent) to auto-forward her chats to his device.
While the wife argued that the evidence was illegally obtained and violated her privacy, the Family Court admitted the chats based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which permits the court to admit any evidence that may assist it in effectively resolving the dispute—regardless of its admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Legal Framework
Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984
“A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
This provision is a significant departure from conventional rules of evidence, allowing greater flexibility to ensure substantive justice in sensitive family matters.
Section 20, Family Courts Act
“The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law…”
This section establishes the overriding effect of the Family Courts Act, giving Section 14 primacy over conflicting provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
WhatsApp Messages and the Law of Evidence
Under the Indian Evidence Act, especially after the 2023 overhaul through the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, electronic records such as WhatsApp messages are admissible if properly authenticated. But in matrimonial cases, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act reduces this burden by permitting the Family Court to accept even otherwise inadmissible evidence, provided it assists in resolving the dispute.
The MP High Court clarified that even though WhatsApp chats may not meet the strict evidentiary standards of the Evidence Act (e.g., certification under Section 65B), Family Courts have the discretion to admit such evidence and assess its probative value.
Privacy v. Relevance: A Constitutional Tug of War
The wife in this case argued that the husband’s act of installing spyware on her phone constituted a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and also contravened the Information Technology Act, 2000. She relied on several High Court judgments, including:
- Rayala M. Bhuvaneshwari v. Nagaphanender Rayala (AIR 2008 AP 98)
- Neha Garg v. Vibhor Garg (2021 SCC Online P&H 4571)
- National Lawyers Campaign v. Union of India (2017 SCC Online Del 8564)
However, the MP High Court disagreed with these views, noting that none of these decisions properly considered Section 14 of the Family Courts Act or Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows disclosure of marital communications in suits between spouses.
Balancing Competing Rights
The court drew heavily from landmark constitutional judgments to resolve the clash between the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial:
- R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973): Held that evidence illegally obtained is still admissible if relevant.
- Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003): Right to privacy is not absolute; a spouse can be compelled to undergo medical examination.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Though privacy is a fundamental right, it must pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
- Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012): In cases of conflict between fundamental rights, one may yield to another.
Applying these principles, the court reasoned that the wife’s privacy claim could not trump the husband’s right to present relevant evidence in a divorce proceeding.
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act: Communication Between Spouses
Section 122 states that communications between spouses during marriage are protected. However, the exception lies in suits between the spouses themselves—such as divorce cases. The court highlighted that this statutory exception allows the disclosure of marital communications, including WhatsApp chats, in matrimonial litigation.
Judicial Precedents Supporting WhatsApp Chat Admissibility
The judgment reviewed several relevant High Court decisions:
- Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka (AIR 2020 Del 156): Upheld that WhatsApp messages, emails, and even social media content can be admitted under Section 14.
- S@S v. CP (2018 SCC Online Del 9237): Facebook screenshots and phone recordings were admitted.
- Deepali Santosh Lokhande v. Santosh Vasantrao (2017 SCC Online Bom 9877): WhatsApp chats admitted to establish cruelty.
- Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain (AIR 2016 Raj 153): Admitted video footage showing alleged adultery of the wife.
These rulings consistently support the idea that Family Courts may admit electronic evidence, even if sourced unethically or illegally.
The Doctrine of “Sub Silentio” and “Per Incuriam”
The MP High Court also addressed conflicting decisions from its own benches that had earlier ruled against admitting such evidence. It labelled these prior decisions as passed “sub silentio” or “per incuriam”—i.e., passed in silence on relevant law or contrary to binding precedents/statutes.
Hence, it reaffirmed the legal position: if evidence is relevant and assists in effective adjudication, it can be admitted, regardless of how it was sourced.
Safeguards and Judicial Caution
The court emphasised that while Section 14 empowers Family Courts to accept such evidence, this discretion must be exercised with safeguards:
- Scrutiny: Authenticity and genuineness of WhatsApp chats must be strictly verified.
- In-camera Proceedings: If evidence is sensitive, the court may limit public access.
- Decency and Propriety: Family Courts must prevent the misuse of such evidence for harassment or spectacle.
- Civil/Criminal Action: Illegally obtained evidence may lead to separate proceedings, even if it is admitted.
Conclusion: Admissibility Is Not the Same as Proof
The MP High Court concluded by stating:
“Admitting evidence is mere inclusion in record. What value or weightage is to be given is the discretion of the judge while finally adjudicating the dispute.”
Thus, the admissibility of WhatsApp chats is not a declaration of their truth. They must still be proved, corroborated, and assessed by the court on merits.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Ashish Shroti observed
“the evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected. The possible misuse of this rule of evidence, particularly in the context of the right to privacy, can be addressed by prudent exercise of judicial discretion by the Family Court, not at the time of receiving evidence but at the time of using evidence at the stage of adjudication;
merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a factin-issue or a relevant fact. Admitting evidence is not even reliance by the court on such evidence. Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court;
the test of ‘relevance’ ensures that the right of a party to bring evidence to court, and thereby to a fair trial, is not defeated. What weight is to be given to evidence so brought-in, and whether or not the court ultimately relies upon such evidence for proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact, is always in the discretion of the court.”
Final Word
The ruling in Anjali Sharma v. Raman Upadhyay marks a turning point in Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. It affirms that:
- WhatsApp chats can be admitted as evidence in family court disputes;
- Right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute;
- Section 14 of the Family Courts Act overrides stricter evidence laws;
- The test for admissibility is relevance, not the method of collection.
This progressive interpretation ensures that procedural barriers in sensitive matrimonial matters do not unduly hamstring courts, and that justice prevails—even in the digital age.