{"id":1614,"date":"2020-10-05T12:32:22","date_gmt":"2020-10-05T12:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gsbagga.com\/?p=1614"},"modified":"2025-11-24T14:23:19","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T14:23:19","slug":"admissibility-of-recorded-conversation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gsbagga.com\/beta\/admissibility-of-recorded-conversation\/","title":{"rendered":"ADMISSIBILITY OF RECORDED CONVERSATION"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is a popular contention that people have a remarkably high dependency on mobile phones and digital evidences are becoming cardinal each passing day. The electronic evidences play a crucial role and have established an entirely new era of jurisprudence. There are situations in which court rely upon the oral dissemination in a particular material fact. This helps in reaching out at some conclusions in different case laws. However, a form of Oral admission, that\u2019s voice recording, is not admissible in the court of law and has different opinions of, when it comes to talking about the genuineness of a particular case. Such admissions are often not considered as irrelevant in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n

Same was a contention in Joginder Kaur vs. Surjit Singh<\/strong>. In this case, a question that called everyone\u2019s attention was whether the appellant, wife has been suffering from some mental disorder or any such kind of issues, continuously or spasmodically. This was put forth, to know if it\u2019s been extended to such an extent that the trial court can grant decree for divorce or not. This case falls under the ambit of section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which primarily consists of certain elements. The elements being<\/p>\n