Spousal Privelege related to communication under Indian laws

 

दिल की बातें रख ले छुपाकर, यादों के किसी कोने में,

रिश्ता ये खामोशी का है, इसे बोलने का हक न देना किसी को ये राज अपनों में,  

बातों को हवा न बनाएं, सिर्फ दिल से दिल तक का सफर रहे,  

ये राज है दोनों का, इस राज को अकेले में ही महफूज रखें।।

Because of the nature of the relationship shared by the two parties involved in the communication, privileged communication is defined as the type of information that cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law.

Section 128 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which was earlier S.122 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows-

“Communications during marriage. — No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.”

The idea that a married pair constituted one legal person and that a spouse could not testify against themselves dates back to medieval ideas. Spousal privilege safeguards the privacy of conversations between spouses. This privilege aims to maintain marital harmony by prioritizing the integrity of marriage over specific judicial interests. It has been supported in cases such as Pringle v. Pringle and Mercer v State

In the 1970 case MC Verghese v. TJ Ponnan, T.J. Ponnan wrote his wife letters that contained disparaging statements about his father-in-law, M.C. Verghese. Her father received these letters from her, and he presented them as proof in court. The Supreme Court decided that even while the spouse is prohibited from testifying about private contacts by Section 122, the letters can still be used as evidence by a third party, such as the father-in-law, despite the Kerala High Court's initial rejection of them.

 

Similar to this, in Rumping v. Dir. Of Public Prosecutions (1862), a letter from the appellant to his wife that contained a confession to murder was entered into evidence after being turned over to the police by an outsider. In all instances, the court determined that these letters are admissible if they are brought by a person other than the husband.

 

Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain

In this instance, Kunal Jain filed for divorce from Preeti Jain on the grounds that she had an affair. He supported his claims with video footage taken using a covert camera. The film, according to Preeti Jain's attorney, breached her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and was inadmissible under Sections 65B and 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Family Court did, however, accept the video as proof. The Rajasthan High Court heard an appeal of the case and confirmed the Family Court's ruling, holding that Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 gave the court the authority to admit such evidence overriding Sections 122 and 65B of the Evidence Act for the purpose of discretion. The court rejected the petition and determined that Preeti Jain's right to privacy was not violated by the video. This case demonstrates the conflict that exists under family law between the right to privacy, spousal privilege, and the admissibility of evidence.

Conclusion

To sum up, marital contacts must be kept private and secret in order for them to be excluded from evidence in court. This is made possible by Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. This clause encourages open communication between partners without worrying about legal ramifications, which strengthens marriages by encouraging honesty, trust, and stability.