BHOPAL: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh HC has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats, even if obtained without consent.Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions – particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order.The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case.The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery.To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife’s mobile phone. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship.When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her fundamental right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband’s method to obtain the chats breached the IT Act.HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence – regardless of admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act – if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes.Citing SC precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic. He upheld the family court’s April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited, stating that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection.The court also concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 – the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial – the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake. Additionally, the court invoked section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings.