Telangana HC Upholds Rejection of Call Recordings and Bank Documents in Divorce Cruelty Case

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao dismissed revisions challenging the trial court's rejection of electronic records, holding unconsented call recordings breach Article 21 and the disputed documents reflect a cordial marital life rather than cruelty.

The Telangana High Court on 18 June 2026 dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by a husband seeking to reverse a trial court order that had refused to receive certain electronic records in a matrimonial proceeding. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, sitting singly at Hyderabad, found no ground to interfere. The trial court had declined to admit call recordings produced without a Section 65-B certificate and without the other party's consent, and had also rejected bank statements, travel tickets, and photographs that the petitioner sought to exhibit as secondary evidence. The High Court agreed on both counts, adding that the documents themselves appeared to depict a harmonious marriage rather than the cruelty alleged.

The Divorce Petition and the Disputed Documents

Kanaparthi Ganga Srinivas filed HMOP No.153 of 2023 before the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpalli seeking a divorce from Indoori Sravani on the ground of cruelty. The petition was originally numbered HMOP No.144 of 2019 before renumbering.

At the stage of trial, the petitioner sought to place additional documents on record. He filed two interlocutory applications — I.A.No.47 of 2023 and I.A.No.79 of 2023 — to receive and allow documents described as both primary and secondary in nature, including electronic evidence. The applications were moved under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The documents the petitioner sought to produce at serial numbers 141 to 144 included recordings of conversations between the parties, medical records, proof of payments, air travel tickets from the USA to India, evidence of pleasure trips, photographs from different occasions, and records of money transfers.

Why the Trial Court Refused the Applications

The Senior Civil Judge dismissed both IAs on 23 December 2024. The trial court held that Section 65-A of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 65-B, which in turn lays down specific conditions relating to the information and the computer concerned. Compliance with those conditions renders an electronic record admissible without further proof or production of the original.

In the petitioner's case, the documents at serial numbers 141 to 144 were filed without any certificate under Section 65-B. The trial court further noted that there was no clarity on whether the petitioner possessed the primary device — the mobile phone — on which the alleged call recordings were made, and no indication that he had applied to any authority for the certificate or had been refused one. On that basis, the trial court held the electronic records not admissible.

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the petitioner advanced several contentions. He argued that the trial court should have allowed both IAs because the respondent would have had full opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner and test the veracity of the evidence. He also pointed out that the authenticity of the call and voice recordings had been verified by Truth Labs, a forensic organisation, and that the recordings had been submitted in a sealed cover.

On the documents downloaded from bank and credit card websites, counsel submitted that the trial court overlooked the fact that those records were pulled directly from the concerned issuers' portals. The petitioner had offered to demonstrate access to his own accounts using his user IDs and passwords before the court to show the primary source of those documents.

Counsel also made a threshold objection: the relevance and admissibility of any document, he contended, ought to be determined at the final stage of appreciating evidence and not at the point of reception. The applications should therefore have been allowed and any objections left for later adjudication.

Counsel for the respondent supported the trial court's order and urged that the civil revision petitions were without merit.

How the High Court Reasoned

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao addressed the two categories of evidence separately.

On the call recordings, the court agreed with the trial court's conclusion on a specific constitutional ground: recording telephone conversations without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and infringes the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that in the absence of consent, “such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence.”

This reasoning operates independently of the Section 65-B certificate question. Even if a certificate had been furnished, the recordings would remain inadmissible because of the manner in which they were obtained.

On the remaining documents — medical records, payment proofs, air tickets, photographs, and money transfer records — the court examined their content and reached a factual conclusion. The documents, as the court read them, related to medical care, travel between the USA and India, leisure trips, payments made to or for the respondent, and photographs taken on various occasions. The court found it impossible to see how these materials would assist the petitioner in proving cruelty. On the contrary, the court observed that the documents appeared to reflect “the cordial and successful marital life shared by the petitioner and the respondent.”

The court also noted that a husband's expenditure on his wife during a subsisting marriage is part of ordinary marital responsibility, and cannot be fashioned into evidence of cruelty by the wife.

The court therefore declined to accept the argument that admissibility should be left for the final stage. Where documents on their face neither establish the alleged cruelty nor comply with statutory requirements for admission, the trial court was entitled — indeed correct — to decline reception at the interlocutory stage itself.

Outcome

Both Civil Revision Petitions — CRP Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025 — were dismissed. The common order dated 23 December 2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpalli in I.A.Nos.47 and 79 of 2023 in HMOP No.153 of 2023 was confirmed. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the revision petitions were directed to stand closed.

The underlying divorce petition on the ground of cruelty before the Metpalli court continues without the disputed documents.