2025:HHC:27244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 457 of 2025 Decided on : 12.08.2025 Gurubaksh Lal Swangla. …Petitioner Versus Smt. Meenakshi. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As per report of the Registry, respondent has been served through her mother, who has refused to accept the notice on the ground that the respondent is presently residing at Chandigarh. 2. As the respondent stands duly served through a major family member, therefore, there is deemed service of the respondent. As none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, she is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27244 prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully, prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in CMP. No. 26 of 2025 (Regn. No.218/2025), in case HMP No.32/2021 (Regn. No.221/2021), titled Gurubaksh Lal Swangla Vs. Smt. Meenakshi, whereby the application, as filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for seeking permission to produce electronic record i.e. pen drive and Transcription of the voice recording of contained in the pen drive, stand dismissed, may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the above stated application, as petitioner/plaintiff/applicant, filed by the may kindly be allowed in the interest of law and justice.” 4. The application filed by the petitioner, under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected by the learned Court below by returning the following reasons:- “8. Petition under Section 13(1)(1a) (1b) of Hindu 3 2025:HHC:27244 Marriage Act has been filed by the applicant/petitioner on 27-11-2021 and vide order dated 22-02-2025, issues have been framed in the matter and case was posted for evidence of the petitioner. However, till date no evidence has been led and instant application has filed seeking permission to produce on record the electronic record i.e., pen drive, containing conversation between petitioner and respondent and also accompanied by transcription and now seeks the indulgence of this Court to allow the application to produce and prove the conversation between the parties on record. Reliance is made here to case titled Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanende Rayala AIR 2008 AP 98 passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, wherein, similar issue arose for decision and Hon'ble High Court, after taking into consideration the factual position of the case as well as the law on the point, have held that conversation has been recorded without consent of one party and it is illegal and infringing the right of privacy of wife, therefore, the tape even if true, cannot be admissible in evidence. Protection of life and personal liberty is right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and once the fact is established as the case, Article 21 of Indian Constitution would be attracted and said right can 4 2025:HHC:27244 not be curtailed. Moreover, reference is also made to decision of case titled as K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2018 (1) SCC 809, wherein right to privacy is recognized as fundamental right. 9. Reverting to the instant case, the phone conversation recording in the pen drive is the conversation took place between the parties to the lis and said conversation is recorded by the applicant/petitioner without the consent of the respondent, as such same is not legal but violating her right to privacy, which is protected under Article 21 of Indian Constitution, as such, applicant cari not be allowed to place and prove on record the conversation in the pen drive as well as the transcription of the same. Hence, application is dismissed in aforesaid term and is disposed of. It be tagged with main case file, after due compliance.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in the light of the subsequent pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vibhor Garg Vs. Neha, 2025 INSC 829. 6. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order under challenge as well as the 5 2025:HHC:27244 subsequent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court concurs with the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg Vs. Neha (supra), has been pleased to hold as under:- “12.6. Clearly therefore, the founding rationale for Section 122 of the said Act, as has been recognised by the Law Commission and subsequently by certain High Courts, was to protect the sanctity of marriage and not the right to privacy of the individuals involved. Therefore, in adjudicating situations where the privilege under Section 122 of the Act is not granted, as in suits between a couple (an exception provided for in Section 122 itself), the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration, since it is not the rationale under which spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of the Act.” 8. Therefore, in the light of the said adjudication, obviously the impugned order is not sustainable. However, taking into consideration the fact that the judgment was announced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after the adjudication was done in the application by the learned Court below, this petition is disposed of by setting aside order dated 6 2025:HHC:27244 07.05.2025 and by directing the learned Court below to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg Vs. Neha (supra), in accordance with law. 9. The petition is disposed of, in above-said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)