The Telangana High Court has upheld a trial court's decision refusing to accept certain electronic records, including alleged call recordings, in a matrimonial dispute. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao held that call recordings made without the other party's consent amount to a breach of privacy and cannot be admitted as evidence in such circumstances.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed on the ground of cruelty. During the trial, the petitioner sought permission to place several additional documents on record, including electronic evidence such as call and voice recordings, along with other documents claimed to be primary and secondary evidence.
The trial court rejected the applications after finding that the electronic records were not accompanied by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It also noted that there was no explanation regarding the original device or the circumstances in which the recordings had been made.
Challenging that order, the petitioner approached the High Court through two Civil Revision Petitions.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the authenticity of the recordings had been verified by a forensic organisation and that the material had been produced in a sealed cover. It was also submitted that several other documents had been downloaded directly from bank and credit card websites and that their authenticity could be established during evidence.
The Court, however, agreed with the trial court's approach regarding the call recordings.
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed,
"Recording calls without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of consent, such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence."
The Court also examined the remaining documents that the petitioner wanted to introduce as evidence. These included medical records, proof of payments, travel tickets, photographs and money transfer records.
According to the Court, these documents did not appear to support the allegation of cruelty. Instead, they reflected aspects of the parties' normal marital relationship and did not strengthen the petitioner's claim for a decree of divorce.
The bench observed,
"This Court is not able to understand how these documents would assist the petitioner in proving the allegation of cruelty."
Decision
Finding no error in the trial court's reasoning, the High Court declined to interfere with the order rejecting the applications for receiving the additional documents.
Accordingly, both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also directed to stand closed.
Case Details
Case Title: Kanaparthi Ganga Srinivas v. Indoori Sravani
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025
Judge: Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
Decision Date: 18 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
