The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a trial court’s order rejecting applications to file additional documents, including electronic evidence such as call recordings, in a divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty.
Background
The petitioner (husband) filed HMOP No. 153 of 2023 seeking divorce from his wife on grounds of cruelty. During trial, he moved I.A. Nos. 47 and 79 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to introduce primary/secondary documents and electronic records (call/voice recordings).
The trial court (Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli) dismissed both applications vide common order dated 23.12.2024, citing non-compliance with Section 65-B requirements for electronic evidence and lack of clarity on primary evidence or certificates.
Aggrieved, the husband filed Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025.
High Court’s Ruling (Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
The Court dismissed the revisions, holding:
- Electronic Evidence: Call recordings without the other party’s consent infringe the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such recordings are inadmissible absent a valid Section 65-B certificate. No certificate was produced, and no explanation was given for its absence.
- Relevance of Documents: The additional documents (medical records, payment proofs, travel tickets, photographs, money transfers) did not support the allegation of cruelty. On the contrary, they indicated a cordial marital life. As the husband, he was expected to bear such expenses during normal married life.
- No Interference: The trial court’s order was correct. Relevance and admissibility issues were properly considered at the threshold. No ground for revision under Section 115 CPC.
Result: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs.
Key Takeaways
- Strict Compliance with Section 65-B: Electronic records require a proper certificate; failure renders them inadmissible.
- Privacy in Matrimonial Cases: Unconsented recordings of spousal conversations violate fundamental rights and are not easily admissible.
- Relevance in Cruelty Cases: Documents must demonstrably support the ground of cruelty; general marital expenses or positive interactions do not advance the petitioner’s case.
- Discretionary Power: Trial courts have wide discretion in receiving additional evidence; High Courts interfere only in cases of material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
Case Details
Case Name: [Petitioner] v. [Respondent] (Names anonymized in judgment)
Citation: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025
Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
Date of Judgment: 18 June 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 